Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC

Syllabus

The defendants appealed from the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff commission and the intervening individual plaintiffs, W and R, finding that the defendants violated the state fair housing laws (§ 46a-64b et seq.) by constructively denying the individual plaintiffs' request for an accommoda- tion of the defendants' no pets policy for W's two emotional support dogs. The defendants claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly determined that two emotional support dogs were necessary for W's equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling. Held: The defendants' claim that the trial court improperly concluded that W suffered from a disability that required an accommodation when the court found only that the defendants regarded her as being disabled was without merit because the court also found that the plaintiffs satisfied their burden of proving that W had a ''record of'' having a mental disability within the meaning of the statute (§ 46a-51 (20)). The trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing that two emotional support dogs were necessary for W's equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling, as the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that both dogs were necessary to ameliorate the effects of W's mental disability. Argued September 10, 2024—officially released March 4, 2025