Hillman Housing Corp. v. Krupnik
Decision Date | 14 November 1972 |
Citation | 40 A.D.2d 788,337 N.Y.S.2d 547 |
Parties | HILLMAN HOUSING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fred KRUPNIK, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E. N. Goodman, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
I. L. Weinberger, New York City, for defendant-respondent.
Before STEVENS, P.J., and McGIVERN, MARKEWICH, KUPFERMAN and TILZER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 10, 1972, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion is granted in favor of plaintiff.
Although there is a superficial discrepancy between the complaint and the submission, the latter is complete, and we are enjoined to dispose of matters as the parties submit them, without the further circumlocution of unnecessary pleadings. See: CPLR § 104 and CPLR § 3026; Albemarle Theatre v. Bayberry Realty, 27 A.D.2d 172, 277 N.Y.S.2d 505; James J. Kelly v. Bank of Buffalo, 32 A.D.2d 875, 302 N.Y.S.2d 60; Brown, Inc. v. Price, 38 A.D.2d 680, 327 N.Y.S.2d 251; and Kovarsky v. Housing Development Adm., 31 N.Y.2d 184, 335 N.Y.S.2d 383, 389, 286 N.E.2d 882, 886 (July 7, 1972). Particularly is this so on this submission, because one result is inevitable: a granting of the motion, because this Court, and the Court of Appeals, have made it manifest that a landlord can legally enforce a lease providing for the prohibition of dogs, as a matter of law.
And this defendant has maintained a dog on the premises for over six years, or long past the time he signed a lease which forbade such harboring; and injunctive relief is available. The landlord does not seek to oust the defendant. Only the canine. To accomplish this no additional amendment of the pleadings is necessary. East River Housing Corporation v. Matonis, 34 A.D.2d 937, 312 N.Y.S.2d 461, aff'd 27 N.Y.2d 931, 318 N.Y.S.2d 146, 266 N.E.2d 825; Riverbay Corp. v. Klinghoffer, 34 A.D.2d 630, 309 N.Y.S.2d 472. Further, in our view the claim of ambiguity and disparity is insupportable. The defendant signed one lease, to wit, Exhibit C. And that said:
'FOURTEENTH.--No dogs or other animals shall be kept or harbored in the demised premises, unless the same in each instance be expressly permitted in writing by the Lessor.'
And the reply affidavit makes it clear, and it is not denied, the occupancy agreement and the lease are one and the same.
All concur, except KUPFERMAN, J., who dissents...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.
...'a landlord can legally enforce a lease providing for the prohibition of dogs as a matter of law' (Hillman Housing Corp. v. Krupnik ... 337 N.Y.S.2d 547)." (930 Fifth Corporation v. King (N.Y.Supreme Ct., App.Div.1972) 42 N.Y.2d 886, 397 N.Y.S.2d 788, 366 N.E.2d 875.) Tracing the Hillman Ho......
-
Board of Mgrs. of Lido Beach Towers Condominium v. Gamiel, 2004 NY Slip Op 50990(U) (NY 9/10/2004)
...that a landlord can legally enforce a lease providing for the prohibition of dogs, as a matter of law. Hillman Housing Corp. v. Krupnik, 40 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div., 1972). "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, assignee, or managing agent of......
-
333-335 East 209th Street HDFC v. McDonnell
... ... Civil Court of the City of New York, ... Bronx County, ... Housing Court Part 18 D ... March 19, 1987 ... Gold & Rosenblatt ... Rivercross Tenants Corp., 107 Misc.2d 135, 438 N.Y.S.2d 164; Glen Oaks Village Owners v. Mauro, ... Klinghoffer, 34 A.D.2d 630, 309 N.Y.S.2d 472; Hillman Housing Corp. v. Krupnik, 40 A.D.2d 788, 337 N.Y.S.2d 547) it does not ... ...
-
1036 Park Corp. v. Rubin
...granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment permanently enjoining defendants from keeping their dog (Hillman Housing Corporation v. Krupnik, 40 A.D.2d 788, 337 N.Y.S.2d 547). In accordance therewith, the action in chief should have been severed from defendants' ...