Baumrind v. Fidelman

• Decision Date: 21 May 1992
• Citation: 584 N.Y.S.2d 545,183 A.D.2d 635
• Parties: Rosalyn BAUMRIND, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Linda FIDELMAN, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 545

584 N.Y.S.2d 545

183 A.D.2d 635

Rosalyn BAUMRIND, Petitioner-Respondent, v.Linda FIDELMAN, Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

May 21, 1992.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILONAS, KUPFERMAN, ROSS and SMITH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, entered August 9, 1991, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County(Mark H. Spires, H.J.), entered February 28, 1991, granting respondent's motion to dismiss this holdover proceeding, affirmed, without costs.

Administrative Code of the City of New York§ 27-2009.1(b), formerly § D26-10.10, requires that a no-pet clause in a lease be enforced through a proceeding commenced within three months after the tenant begins openly and notoriously keeping the pet.Here, a proceeding was commenced within such three-months period, but process was not properly served on the tenant.The parties stipulated to discontinue the proceeding without prejudice, whereupon landlord promptly re-served tenant properly, albeit not within three months of her first learning of the pet.

The right to enforce the no-pet clause is waived for a "failure to bring a proceeding"(Brown v. Johnson, 139 Misc.2d 195, 196, 527 N.Y.S.2d 679).Here, the City Council was expressly concerned with landlords who make no attempt to enforce their rights under a no-pet clause for a long time, and then do so for bad faith reasons.There is no...