Google Search

TenantNet Forum Archives 1996-2002
Posting and Replies are disabled in all Archives
TenantNet Forum | TenantNet Forum Archives Index


Richard you ignorant slut

Posted by WAK on March 09, 2000 at 16:50:51:

In Reply to: Re: Appellate Term Rules Against Dog Owners... TOUGH!!!!!! posted by richard on March 08, 2000 at 11:18:40:

The pet law was meant to prevent arbitrary use of a Pet clause on long term renters. Too often if the landlord decided they didn't like someone then they would use the pet clause against them ....(i.e. complaining about no heat, missing the rent by a day, parting you hair on left instead of the right)....

You're an ingorant slut because dogs that are a nuisance i.e peeing a crapping where alway evictatable...


YOU NEED THERAPY...stop using this board as a means to vent your screwed up life...

WAK

: I am really an easy person to get along with...but to me anyone who has a dog in New York City is nuts......

: I have had my share of barking, peeing, krapping and stupid ignorant dog owners in my life... and in my opinion there are more bad dog owners then good...

: In our other apartment we had one dog owner on the 5th floor who would let his dog run in the hallways barking yapping peeing and then wind up at MY door barking cause he smelled our cats at 6:15-7 am almost every morning..... I kept yelling at this dope carry your dog downstairs and take him out......FINALLY other people complained and it was close...we Almost had him EVICTED YEHHHH!!!!! Thats just one of many examples of bad dog owners...

: CAT POWER!!!!!

: ___________________________________________________________________________

:
: : 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:



Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 
Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL:


   

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information | Contact Us
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws |

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name