New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 6, 2011
EQR-HUDSON CROSSING A, LLC, EQR-HUDSON CROSSING B, LLC, EQR-HUDSON CROSSING C, LLC, EQR-HUDSON CROSSING D, LLC, EQR-HUDSON CROSSING E, LLC, AS TENANTS IN COMMON,
PETITIONERS-LANDLORDS-RESPONDENTS, - -
EQR-Hudson Crossing A, LLC v Kalouf
2011 NY Slip Op 52172(U)
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on December 6, 2011
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered February 28, 2011, which granted landlord's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for possession, and denied tenant's cross motion to amend her answer and for summary judgment dismissing the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered February 28, 2011, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Landlord's failure to enforce the "no pet" provision in the governing lease agreement in connection with tenant's first dog, Gogo, did not constitute a waiver of the lease clause -- requiring landlord's written consent "in each instance" -- as to tenant's second dog (see 1725 York Venture v Block, 64 AD3d 495, 496 ; Park Holding Co. v Emicke, 168 Misc 2d 133, 134 ). It is not seriously disputed that landlord promptly objected to the second dog here at issue and timely commenced the instant holdover summary proceeding (see Administrative Code of the City of NY § 27-2009.1[b]). "Any waiver under the law is more properly limited to existing pets which are part of the household; it is not reasonably extended to future pets which were not yet in the premises" (Park Holding v Emicke, 168 Misc 2d at 135 [citations omitted]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. Decision
Date: December 06, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.