Posted by Jean on October 21, 2001 at 17:56:18:
I've been living in a rent stabilized apt. in Queens for 10 years, in my current apt. (same building, upstairs) for 5 yrs. Every lease I've had here has had a 'no pets' clause. The rental agent at the time assured me that my cat would not be a problem at all because they only exercised the 'no pets' clause for problem tenants. My cat is no longer with us (survived the first 7 yrs. in the building), and I've been without a pet for three years now. It seems half the tenants here have dogs or cats, and I've only ever seen that clause used to remove rowdy, loud, or 'barking dog' tenants. And everyone here does, indeed, seem to have a pet of some kind. Last week a public notice was posted by our building management telling us to consult our leases, there is a 'no pet' clause, either remedy the situation or bear the consequences. This is the first such notice in 10 years. I was hoping to get a parakeet or two (quiet birds)... is this notice to be taken seriously? What about my neighbors who have (quiet) pets and have been in the building for 20 years? Every super has known about pet ownership among the tenants... can long-time tenants be 'grandfathered'? One neighbor tells me that his first lease doesn't contain any 'no pets' reference, only subsequent renewal leases, and he feels he would win in court...
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup