BY AL PENNISI, ESQ
The pet law expressly covers a tenant who openly and notoriously has harbored a household pet for a period of at least three months following taking possession of a unit, where landlord, who has knowledge of the pet, has failed, within the three month period of harboring, to begin a summary proceeding or action to enforce the lease provision that prohibits the keeping of such a pet.
The pet law was upheld as constitutional in Megalopolis Property Association v. Claude Buvron, AD2d 232, 494 NYS2d 14 (1985). If the landlord does not commence a proceeding to evict within the three month period, the right to do so is deemed waived, Starrett City, Inc. v. Maureen Jace, 137 Misc. 2d 328, 524 NYS2d 130 (1987).
The relevant issue that needs to be addressed here is: What constitutes knowledge of the pet by the landlord?
The most recent case on point is Seward Park Housing Corp. v. Cohen (see NYARM April, 2000). Defendant was a tenant in an apartment complex containing over 1700 units. In early September 1996, tenant acquired a dog. Tenant would walk the dog in and out of the building on a regular basis. This was witnessed by building security guards, porters and maintenance staff and also by neighbors. Landlord did not commence a holdover proceeding until February 1997.
The Civil Court found that the testimony of the tenants and their witness established that the landlord’s on-site employees knew of the tenants open harboring of a dog for over four months prior to the commencement of the holdover proceeding. This was considered to have put landlord on notice of the dog. Because landlord did not commence the proceeding within the three-month time period, the trial court found landlord waived the no pet covenant in the lease.
The court of the Appellate Term reversed, finding that the security personnel and maintenance personnel should not be viewed as agents of the landlord. The court stated that the fact that the building staff may have observed the tenant with the dog on premises did not establish that the landlord had knowledge or was on notice. The court also held that the pet law did not cover the tenants in this case, since they harbored the dog for only a short period of time.
What is interesting to note in the above case is the fact that the security and maintenance personnel were independently contracted, and the size of the apartment complex were seen as important factors by the court. I believe if the housing community had been a more closed community, the court may have ruled differently. This issue will no doubt be further litigated in the future.
BOARD MEMBER AND PERSONAL LIABILITY
Recently, the daily newspapers ran an article about a Board President who lost an appeal to have his cooperative indemnify his punitive damages. Punitive damages are rewarded as a punishment for acting in BAD FAITH. Punitive damages are very rare, especially in a cooperative housing environment. In the case Broome v. Biondi, et al, the court founded that the Board President, Biondi, of Beekman Hill House Apartment Corp, acted "intentionally, maliciously, and willfully in violating the civil rights of the Broomes". Thus, the court ordered to have Board President Biondi pay $200,000 in punitive damages. Mr. Biondi commenced an action against the Apartment Corporation seeking indemnification for the punitive damages award. In this case, the court found that, under the Business Corporation Law, indemnification couldn’t be made to a director for their actions.
Remember, this was a punitive damages case. Punitive damages are awarded as a punishment for wrongdoing. Please keep in mind and review with your cooperative attorney, your by-laws about indemnification, your directors liability insurance, and applications not accepted. Again punitive damages are for acting in BAD FAITH, make sure you do not.