Tenant Sues to Enforce Building's No-Dog Rule

Sometimes people just don't like dogs, and one of those people is Jeanne Farley. Farley is suing her apartment's management company to, as she tells the Daily News, "get rid of the dogs and play by the rules." Sixty-four year old Farley has a fear of dogs (cynophobia) points out that the rules at Penn South does have a ban on dogs and her lease says "no animals of any kind" (!!) are not allowed. She says, "I can't go in the elevator if there's a dog in there, and I'm afraid to go in some of the hallways. I've never been bitten, but the growling, the teeth and the jumping just scares me."

We'll wait to see if Farley get the management company, Mutual Redevelopment Houses, to enforce the rule. It'll be hard for MRH to kick out any dog owners, though, given this law, via a commenter on a post about Stuy Town cracking down on pets:

TENANT'S RIGHT TO PETS

The right to keep a pet in New York City apartments was
strengthened with the enactment of Section 27-2009.1 of the
Housing Maintenance Code in 1983. The tenants to whom this
provision applies are:

o Tenants in privately - owned multiple dwellings (three or
more residential units)

o Mitchell-Lama tenants

o Tenants in city-owned (HPD) buildings

Tenants living in New York City Housing Authority buildings
(NYCHA), however, are not protected, although NYCHA regulations
have eased.

Reasons for the Law

The current law was enacted by the New York City Council
concerned that multiple dwelling leases prohibiting the keeping
of household pets had led to, "widespread abuses by building
owners or their agents, who knowing that a tenant has a pet for
an extended period of time, seek to evict the tenant and/or his
or her pet often for reasons unrelated to the creation of a
nuisance". The Council went on to declare, in the law, that pets
were kept for legitimate reasons of "safety and companionship"
and because of the continuing housing emergency it was "necessary
to protect pet owners from retaliatory eviction" by landlords
desiring possession of apartments. It concluded that enactment of
the provision was necessary "to prevent potential hardship and
dislocation of tenants within this city."

What the Law Says

Section 27-2009.1 states:

Where a tenant in a multiple dwelling openly and notoriously for
a period of three months or more following taking possession of a
unit, harbors or has harbored a household pet or pets, the
harboring of which is not prohibited by the multiple dwelling
law, the housing maintenance or the health codes of the city of
New York or any other applicable law, and the owner or his agent
has knowledge of this fact, and such owner fails within this
three month period to commence a summary proceeding or action to
enforce a lease provision prohibiting the keeping of such
household pets, such lease provision shall be waived.

Sometimes the law is called the "pet waiver law." It requires the
landlord to enforce any existing provision of a current lease
prohibiting pets within three months of the tenant's taking
possession of an apartment, or Obtaining a pet, or forever lose
the right to do so. In this context, "enforce" means the landlord
must start an eviction proceeding in Housing Court based on the
"no pets" clause in the lease. Failure to start such proceeding
would render the restrictive clause unenforceable.

So, maybe Farley might only be able to charge bills to a shrink to help her cope with her fear?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in Arts and Events on December 13, 2006 5:20 PM

Comments [rss]

dk

if it says 'no dogs or pets of any kind' in black and white, any person living in that building should adhere to that rule. these are renters. if they want to live in a place where they can have a dog, they should find a pet friendly building or buy a house.

my building is a walk-up, no pets building. many of the apartments in my building are rent stabalized. many of the people who live in the apartments with the dogs are people who live in rent stabilized apartments. see the trend here?

i wouldn't mind seeing these people kicked out. it's bad enough i'm supplementing their rent, but to have them break all the rules is a real slap in the face. i had a party one night that got a little out of control and loud (and led to the roof.) i wasn't technically breaking any rules of my lease (we're allowed on the roof in my building), but the building management still saw it fit to write me a letter asking me to keep my guests off the roof from now on.

maybe i should write them a letter requesting the other tenants keep their animals out of the common areas from now on? what do you guys think ;-)

stewart

I HATE when people take craps in the stairwell. Does that happen in your building too?

edumication

Columbia Alumni --- You're absolutely right that I make grammatical mistakes. I, like Jen, write for a public audience and make plenty of mistakes. But, unlike her, I proofread my work before it is published, and therefore take pride in respecting my work and my audience. I think her editorial decisions are good and her story introductions are engaging. The shoddy grammar, however, is an insult to both writer and reader.

As to the fact that she went to Columbia, what should I take from that? Is Columbia proud to produce alumni who publish substandard work? Surely, if you read Gothamist frequently, you know that she consistently makes grammatical mistakes, which, in many cases, confuses the meaning of the story. But, perhaps, as a fellow alumni, you have learned similar habits and can navigate her meaning better. You have certainly learned the logical fallacy of tu quoque.

Elderta

Congrats, Samantha T, sweet revenge indeed.

I lived in a building where my neighbor's dog barked all the time next door to me. It was annoying, but I still say that no pets clauses are harmful. So many animals need homes as badly as humans do. Sigh.

Samantha T

"My building doesn't allow pets, but the guy in the apartment above me has a dog. He got a note from his shrink stating that he needs the dog for emotional support."

I don't see why he doesn't have to move out, then. I'm sure there are people who live in your building who found the fact that it was a no-pets building very attractive. There's lots of reasons why people don't want to live in buildings with dogs - among them the fact that dogs often bark their asses off. My neighbor's dog barks non-frigging-stop when she's not at home. I like her, so I'm not going to make a huge deal about it, but I do find it extremely inconsiderate. How could she think that the sound isn't disturbing to the people right next door? There's no way she doesn't know about it, either.

I'm having a baby in June. Sweet revenge ;).

jack oneil

I think she just wants the rules enforced. What's next? Taking a crap in the stairwell? Sure its against the rules, but if I've been doing it every day for a month there is a NYC law that says if I appear homeless, I can crap where I want.

Toby

Another stupid lawsuit.

Fear of dogs?

Come on.

I was bitten in the face by a dog when I was a kid and I am not afraid of dogs. She needs to get her head examined. If it is so much of an issue why doesn't she move?

Wait. I know, she sees an easy payday.

stewart

So does John Kerry. ditto for him

SkoolDaze

The President has a degree from Yale.

He's still an asshole.

lazlo hollyfeld

I didn't know that if you obtained a degree from Columbia no one can ever give you constructive criticism again.

That explains why my brother-in-law (Columbia PhD) is so touchy; he's not an assh*le, I just didn't know the rules.

I guess people from Columbia should only work for and with other people from Columbia then. I'll remember that when I'm looking at resumes.

nisey79

My building doesn't allow pets, but the guy in the apartment above me has a dog. He got a note from his shrink stating that he needs the dog for emotional support.

Vanessa

I enjoy Jen's articles and respect her time and hard work, but I have to agree that her spelling and grammar mistakes are quite frequent and careless.

"We'll wait to see if Farley get the management company, Mutual Redevelopment Houses, to enforce the rule."

Columbia Alumni

Jen Chung likely went to a better college than you. http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/nov05/updates4.php

However, she's also human. I'm pretty sure you also made some grammatical mistakes in your lifetime, "edumication."

Benjamin

This woman seems to be hamming it up for here case. A rule is a rule, so there is no need to bring in your fear of dogs.....people are still going to hate you even knowing this.

Elderta

Sorry. I understand her plight but there are way too

many homeless animals who actually suffer from no pet clauses. I think it's a stupid rule. I hope she gets better with her phobia.

sarah silverman

yeah but i'll bet she's good at math

s

Sounds like a job for Cesar Milan, the Dog Whisperer, my hero.

bklynd

This whole thing is SO New York. Different sets of rules for different folks.

edumication

Sometimes I wonder if Jen Chung went to college. Proofreading takes two seconds, is that too much for some self-respect?

Sixty-four year old Farley has a fear of dogs (cynophobia) points out that the rules at Penn South does have a ban on dogs and her lease says "no animals of any kind" (!!) are not allowed.

bernie goetz

this whole city is going to the dogs.

Mr. Nosuch

It's possible that the tenants have riders for the pet. Our building's standard lease says "no pets" but they quite readily add a rider to it to allow for it. So my neighbor might think "Hey, MY lease says NO PETS" and he's right, but MY lease says it is ok.

Frankly, I think the woman should spend more money on a therapist and less on a lawyer. If she fixed her phobia she'd be a happier person in general, instead of trying to change the world so she doesn't have to deal with her neurosis.

janelle

if i moved to a building because there would not be pets, i would expect the building management to enforce their own rule, not turn a blind eye.

stewart

what a bunch of BS; what's the issue here?

it says no pets, it means no pets

it would be bad enough if you snuck in a cat but a dog is pretty blatant given that you have to go through common areas to walk it

some people think rules just don't apply to them

for the record I have a dog but I waited until I lived in a pet-friendly building before I got him and wouldn't move to a building where pets are not permitted