---

Posted by James on September 12, 2000 at 13:48:31:

In Reply to: Re: pets posted by Laura on September 11, 2000 at 22:26:45:

I am aware of this, but case law differs. Check out all of the housing court decisions over the past 5 years. There are several that clearly show precedents that run contrary to your interperetation of the statue. Each of these cases show that the lanlord has challenged the replacement pet and won. I know that this is not the concusion you would reach on reading the code, and as a pet owner I am equally bothered by this. The waver for one pet is not permanent for all animals after. The arguement goes something like this: What if the first pet is a small cute harmless toy poodle, the landlord doesn't object and the 90-day period passes, but the next pet the tenant gets after the poodle dies is a large pit bull, is it fair for the owner of the building not to be able to object to this animal now?

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: I am aware of this, but case law differs.  Check out all of the housing court decisions over the past 5 years.  There are several that clearly show precedents that run contrary to your interperetation of the statue.  Each of these cases show that the lanlord has challenged the replacement pet and won.  I know that this is not the concusion you would reach on reading the code, and as a pet owner I am equally bothered by this.  The waver for one pet is not permanent for all animals after.  The arguement goes something like this:  What if the first pet is a small cute harmless toy poodle, the landlord doesn't object and the 90-day period passes, but the next pet the tenant gets after the poodle dies is a large pit bull, is it fair for the owner of the building not to be able to object to this animal now?
:   


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---