Co-op Owner Had Knowledge of Tenant's Dog

LVT Number: #22074

Facts: Landlord owned the unsold shares of tenant’s rent-stabilized apartment when the building converted to cooperative ownership. Tenant kept a dog in the apartment without landlord’s permission from 1995 until 2005. When the dog died, tenant got a new dog that was part pit bull, again without landlord’s permission. The building’s doorman saw tenant walk the dog two or three times per day. In late 2005, the dog leapt at and clawed another tenant’s arm, causing a slight puncture wound.

Facts: Landlord owned the unsold shares of tenant’s rent-stabilized apartment when the building converted to cooperative ownership. Tenant kept a dog in the apartment without landlord’s permission from 1995 until 2005. When the dog died, tenant got a new dog that was part pit bull, again without landlord’s permission. The building’s doorman saw tenant walk the dog two or three times per day. In late 2005, the dog leapt at and clawed another tenant’s arm, causing a slight puncture wound. Building management, landlord, and landlord’s separate managing agent all were notified. Landlord immediately sent tenant a 10-day notice to cure, then a termination notice. Landlord sued to evict tenant for keeping the dog in violation of his lease and for the nuisance caused by the dog’s vicious disposition. The court ruled for landlord based on tenant’s violation of the no-pets clause of his lease. Tenant appealed, claiming that landlord knew about the dog for more than three months before acting. The appeals court ruled for tenant, and landlord appealed.

Court: Landlord loses. The doorman was employed by the building’s management company, not landlord’s. But under the co-op conversion law, one managing agent is responsible for providing services to all tenants and co-op apartment owners. Landlord’s own manager admitted that it relied on building management for information. Since building management knew about the dog for more than three months, landlord was deemed to know and therefore waived the right to evict tenant for merely keeping the dog. The case was sent back to the trial court for a hearing on whether the dog was vicious and must therefore be removed.

1725 York Venture v. Block: NYLJ, 7/30/09, p. 36, col. 1 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Gonzalez, PJ, Andrias, Buckley, Acosta, JJ)