Rob,

Your question raises an important issue. While many co-ops have maintained no-pet policies, changes in law, particularly federal rules regarding emotional support animals and New York City’s 90-day pet waiver law, have made such policies difficult to enforce. In practice, many buildings end up accommodating animals without defined rules or oversight as a result of this. This creates incentives for shareholders to conceal animals or claim exemptions for them and weakens board authority.

A foreseeable pitfall of permitting pets is the potential increase in nuisance and liability concerns. Barking, damage to common areas, unsanitary conditions in hallways or elevators, and allergic reactions among residents are common complaints in buildings that allow animals. There is also the risk of injury claims if a pet harms a resident, guest, or building staff. The same would apply to an animal that the board had to permit by law.

Given this, changing the policy to allow pets with conditions, may be the better option. It allows the board to shift from reactive to proactive, and gives shareholders a path to voluntarily comply while preserving the board’s ability to impose limits and consequences. It may also help avoid a situation where only those willing to violate the rules are permitted to keep animals, which could inspire resentment among residents. This approach could allow the board to manage the problems associated with permitting animals directly rather than through exceptions.


I hope this was helpful.

> Join the conversation