Where tenants can seek help and help others
by TenantNet » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:37 pm
by Anna » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:52 pm
by Anna » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:59 pm
by Aubergine » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:12 pm
"would lead to a conclusion that all small dogs or other animals whose masters elected to treat only as house pets could not have the benefit of the [Pet L]aw’s waiver even though they had been seen and noted by management personnel . . . such a reading is arbitrary and capricious also because it would seem to work most harshly against tenants who are house bound for one reason or another, such as age or disability, and who choose to have small dogs (or cats) as a companion without the need to walk them."
One should be aware, however, that where the landlord’s suit is dismissed on technical grounds, such as improper service of legal papers, a new suit commenced by the landlord may be considered timely as long as the original one was.11[Note -- As of September 2005, "commencement" occurs upon filing, rather than service, of the papers initiating a lawsuit in NYC Civil Court.]
Thus, if your landlord is retaliating against you for something you have the legal right to do (such as making a good faith complaint to a governmental authority) you may have an additional defense in an eviction proceeding, but you do not have to first prove this to win under the Pet Law."We reject plaintiff’s argument that the statutory three-month period is inapplicable absent the finding that a no-pet provision is being used as a pretext for a retaliatory eviction or some other bad faith motive."
[emphasis added]. . . “b. Where a tenant in a multiple dwelling openly and notoriously for a period of three months or more following taking possession of the unit harbors, or has harbored a household pet or pets . . . and the owner or his or her agent has knowledge of this fact, and such owner fails within this three-month period to commence a summary proceeding or action to enforce the lease provision prohibiting the keeping of such household pet, such lease provision shall be deemed waived. . . . c. It shall be unlawful for an owner or his or her agent, by express terms or otherwise, to restrict a tenant’s rights as provided in this section. Any such restriction shall be unenforceable and deemed void as against public policy.”
“Section 27-2009.1: A landlord waives the right to enforce a no-pet clause by failing to commence suit within three months after learning of an animal’s presence. The waiver applies where landlord lacks actual knowledge but is chargeable with such knowledge by the tenant’s conduct, e.g., frequent goings and comings in view of building employees. [Note: the statute speaks of the tenant’s harboring the pet ‘openly and notoriously . . . and the owner or its agent hav[ing] knowledge of this fact’]. Thus, the defense is established even if tenant proves only constructive notice [citations omitted].”
by TenantNet » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:53 pm
by TenantNet » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:37 am
by TenantNet » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:33 pm
by TenantNet » Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:39 pm
by TenantNet » Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:34 pm
by TenantNet » Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:50 pm
On or about August 20, 2013, and on a continuous basis thereafter, the dog that you have been harboring in your apartment has been barking at various hours of the day and night. This has annoyed and disturbed other tenants and severely interfere with other tenants’ right to comfort, safety and quiet enjoyment of the Premises. This conduct has been chronic and persistent and constitutes a nuisance.
by TenantNet » Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:04 am
by TenantNet » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:29 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests