---

Posted by Mark Smith on March 08, 2000 at 07:40:47:

From Today's News Update in the New York Law Journal, Wednesday, March 8, 2000:

Security guards and maintenance workers at an apartment building are not considered agents who have a duty to notify the landlord when a tenant's lease provisions are violated, a panel of the Appellate Term, First Department, has ruled. The landlord's petition to remove the tenants, who had kept a dog, Rocky, in violation of their lease, was originally denied because it was filed too late. Housing Part Judge Howard Malatzky had said Seward Park Housing Corp. should have been aware of Rocky's presence earlier because personnel who worked at the complex could have seen the dog and notified the landlord. The appellate panel reversed, saying the building's workers "would not be reasonably expected to report that they had seen a person walking a dog."

==============================================

For people who live in Manhattan and the Bronx, this decision severely limits their ability to keep a dog in violation of a lease provision banning pets, by making New York City Administrative Code §27-2009.1(b) virtually meaningless. Other courts have previously ruled that a non-resident superintendent could not be expected to observe a tenant walking a dog.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Appellate Term Rules Against Dog Owners... TOUGH!!!!!! richard 03/08/00 (4)
  • Richard you ignorant slut WAK 03/09/00 (3)
    • Re: Richard you ignorant slut..not bad you must be a dog lover richard 03/09/00 (2)
      • Not Too Many Tenants Walk Their Cats In Public Mark Smith 03/10/00 (1)
        • Not Too Many Tenants Walk Their Cats In Public TRUE! richard 03/10/00 (0)

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: From Today's News Update in the New York Law Journal, Wednesday, March 8, 2000:

: Security guards and maintenance workers at an apartment building are not considered agents who have a duty to notify the landlord when a tenant's lease provisions are violated, a panel of the Appellate Term, First Department, has ruled. The landlord's petition to remove the tenants, who had kept a dog, Rocky, in violation of their lease, was originally denied because it was filed too late. Housing Part Judge Howard Malatzky had said Seward Park Housing Corp. should have been aware of Rocky's presence earlier because personnel who worked at the complex could have seen the dog and notified the landlord. The appellate panel reversed, saying the building's workers "would not be reasonably expected to report that they had seen a person walking a dog."

: ==============================================

: For people who live in Manhattan and the Bronx, this decision severely limits their ability to keep a dog in violation of a lease provision banning pets, by making New York City Administrative Code §27-2009.1(b) virtually meaningless. Other courts have previously ruled that a non-resident superintendent could not be expected to observe a tenant walking a dog.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---