Triangle Management Corp. v. Inniss
| Decision Date | 13 April 1970 |
| Citation | 62 Misc.2d 1095,312 N.Y.S.2d 745 |
| Parties | TRIANGLE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner (Landlord) v. Wilbert INNISS, Respondent (Tenant). . Trial Term |
| Court | New York City Court |
Silverman, Goldstein & Anderman, New York City (Marvin Anderman, New York City, of counsel) for petitioner.
Fred Samuel, Harlem Assertion of Rights Inc., New York City (Stephen Teret, New York City, of counsel) for respondent.
In this holdover summary proceeding Respondent is charged with violation of a substantial obligation of his lease, to wit: harboring a dog in his apartment contrary to the provisions (prohibition) in his lease. The apartment building is part of a new non-profit complex in the East Harlem area. When fully completed the current project will house approximately 120 families. Two local groups sponsored this project to demonstrate the feasibility of creating considerable additional sorely needed housing by rehabilitating old buildings in depressed urban areas.
All of the tenants are recipients of various types of public assistance. Respondent receives a subsidy of one-half of his rent under the federal rent supplement program; and the lease herein, containing the prohibition, was one required by FHA to be signed by all rent supplement tenants. The project was constructed under the auspices of the federal and city governments and is fully subsidized by the federal government. It is managed by a community owned corporation. The builder/owner is a subsidiary of a large publicly owned corporation. It will make no profit and will shortly convey title to a community owned non-profit corporation at cost to be paid by the frderal government.
The Chambers Memorial Baptist Church (which will control the new corporate landlord) and the Community Association of the East Harlem Triangle, Inc., proposed and sponsored this housing program and promulgated the rules and regulations governing all tenancies. These Rules and Regulations were patterned after mandatory federal Rules and Regulations.
There is an urgent need for new housing in the immediate community and the presently developing programs of the sponsors will, if all goes well, provide new housing for 2000 families in this area.
All prospective tenants were required to attend tenant orientation meetings before leases were tendered to them. Respondent admittedly attended one of these at which the prohibition against animals was extensively discussed. Respondent offered no objection to this prohibition and thereupon was offered the lease and regulations for signature.
Paragraph 15(g) of the Lease states that tenant agrees 'to have no animals or pets of any kind on the premises, other than those expressly permitted in writing by the Landlord.' Par. 17 of the Rules and Regulations, which was separately signed by respondent provides that 'no dogs * * * shall be kept or harbored in the premises.'
Respondent admitted knowing these prohibitions were in the lease and rules when he signed them. He also admits harboring a dog, which he has owned for 5 years, despite the aforesaid provision. The testimony of respondent and his wife as to when they first brought the dog onto the premises and the reasons therefor was conflicting and fell far short of convincing the Court that the respondent did in fact intend, at any time, to comply with the lease and rules.
Last May and again in June (this time in writing) the managing agent demanded the dog be removed. Tenant repeatedly promised to do so, and may have done so, briefly. However, if in fact the dog was ever removed, it was soon back on the premises and remains there.
Though respondent contends otherwise, the Court finds that there are no other dogs in the building and that those which were once there have been removed upon the management's timely demands.
Respondent claims his dog is not a nuisance and that it does not impair the cleanliness of the building. Landlord does not contradict this.
Petitioner acknowledges that there have been two burglaries and some minor acts of vandalism in the building. From the outset petitioner has endeavored to deal with these problems and is now broadening its efforts to provide safeguards and security for its tenants.
The Court also finds that petitioner regularly inspects the functioning and effectiveness of the devices being employed for these purposes.
There is just the merest suggestion that respondent's dog--a poodle--is retained by respondent as a security measure. The Court finds there is no basis for so concluding. The Court is of the opinion that the sole reason for the respondent's violation of his commitments is the family's strong attachment to the dog. The Court fully understands and appreciates this sentiment. However, it may not indulge and excuse respondent's violation of his contractual obligations upon any such ground especially in view of the special circumstances here present.
The landlord and management considered the prohibition of great importance, as did FHA. This was made entirely clear to respondent by the emphasis given to it in the lectures to prospective tenants which preceded the offering of leases to tenants and by its inclusion in both the lease and the rules.
The Court finds the respondent to be an intelligent, articulate person and entertains not the slightest doubt that he fully understood the significance attached by the Government and the landlord to the provisions in question and the reasons therefor.
The problem of providing low cost housing for disadvantaged people is fully discussed in the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Kerner Commission Report) (Chapter 17, Subchapter IV): '* * * decent housing remains a chronic problem for the disadvantaged urban household.' For those families living '* * * in the decaying slums of our central cities, the goal of a decent home and suitable environment is as far distant as ever.'
Petitioner contends that the rules adopted by the sponsors are fair and reasonable and if observed would promote the health, welfare, safety and convenience of the tenants. The Court concludes that the provisions before it are reasonable and do serve to assure the cleanliness and safety of the building. Moreover, these provisions are especially important and helpful in ghetto communities as it is commonly recognized that housing in such areas is...
To continue reading
Request your trial