3.COURT FINDS CO-OP BOARD DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BUYER SUFFERING FROM CANCER
3. It is a question of, “To parse or not to parse… whether ‘tis nobler in the Law, to exact compliance with the letter, than to cast arms against a sea of regulatory statutes, and by the use of common sense, end them…” in an SJ ruling for the obvious.
Shakespeare rarely wins out over the possibility of overturning a verdict on appeal, which is now the co-op board lost to the retired cardiologist receiving treatments at Sloan-Kettering for colon cancer. The building’s prohibition on the installation of washer-dryer combinations may have been enacted after the fact of other apartments having them, but it was made clear at the doctor’s interview. That he felt it necessary to conceal his need to launder his incontinent status at the closing, then, should be considered as false pretenses, justifying the cancellation of his purchase.
But the modern world has much stricter standards for non-discrimination than it does for the Truth. The Lie of Omission then must cede to the cancellation of sale which commits the act of barring due to physical disability, and the all-mighty lobby of the “handicapped” (or “differently-abled”) who are responsible for everything from bowing busses and chair lifts to curb cuts to extra restrooms in all public spaces.
While these may be thought of as inconveniences and tax burdens upon those without such restriction of movement placed upon them by their appliances, they are the due and proper service owed to those for whom they were enacted. Federal Fair housing as well as local Human Rights laws bar any inquiry into whether a prospective buyer has any disability. Thus, “to parse or not to parse” becomes a moot question when a blatant case of discrimination smacks you in the prima facie. Just as the board needed no reason to reject, the doctor was under no obligation to reveal “obstacles” which would give reason for discrimination.