Should tenants be permitted to keep smaller pets despite a landlord's No-Pets rule on a lease? One elderly woman won a case allowing her to keep her two cats in her rent controlled apartment. This win begs the question of whether current laws and no-pet lease clauses contribute to pet overpopulation in the City. The article basically supports the idea that non-nuisance pets should be permitted to remain with their owners when discovered by landlords, and when a pet dies, a new pet be allowed.
New York Daily NewsA court ruling could make it harder for landlords to evict tenants with catsBY Amy Sacks
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, April 18th 2009, 4:00 AM
For the last five years, 73-year-old Siiri Marvits has been fighting her landlord in court for the right to remain in her rent-controlled West Village apartment with her feline companions, Athena and Apollo.
But the state's second highest appellate court recently ruled that the landlord could not kick the elderly tenant out, despite a no-pets clause in her lease. Marvits had won the case in a lower appellate court last year but the landlord appealed.
Animal law experts said this case would pave the way for other tenants whose pets are not a nuisance to neighbors.
"This decision should allay concerns of people with cats, small dogs and other animals who do not routinely or ever leave their apartments that they can still get protection under New York City's pet law," says Elinor Molbegott, legal counsel for The Humane Society of New York. "It's a decision of the Appellate Division and lower courts should follow it."
In 2004, Marvits was threatened with eviction from the two-room apartment where she has lived for 47 years. She has shared the Manhattan apartment for more than a decade with her timid cats - a mother and daughter she adopted.
Marvits is protected under a 1983 Pet Law aimed at stopping landlords from using no-pet rules as an excuse to evict tenants so they can hike up the rent.
The provision is waived if the landlord fails to take legal action within three months of the tenant's open and notorious harboring of the pet, according to the law.
Marvits' landlord, 184 W. 10th St. Corp., argued that she didn't "openly and notoriously" have the cats, because she didn't take them outside and they hid whenever someone entered the apartment.
But the court agreed that their litter box and food bowls were plainly visible over the years to the building's superintendent and to various contractors who entered her apartment to fix leaky pipes and circuit breakers.
Marvits was not required to display the cats in public, and the cats' shy nature and tendency to hide from strangers also kept them out of sight.
"What I'm hoping is we get to the stage where the only pet case we see is because of nuisance," said Marvits' lawyer, Steven DeCastro.
He is currently defending another client who has lived in her Manhattan rental condo unit for 34 years. Her landlord claims her cat smells and is a nuisance to neighbors, but she suspects they want to sell her valuable apartment.
Experts are calling upon the City Council to pass legislation to expand the right of tenants to share their lives with companion animals. That includes the right of elderly tenants to get a new pet when one dies.
No-pet clauses play a part in the tragedy of the city's pet overpopulation crisis, said Molbegotte, the animal shelter lawyer. She said the law limits the people who can keep pets in the city, and those threatened with eviction relinquish their pets to animal shelters.
Some rules are about to become even more restrictive. Beginning May 1, the New York City Housing Authority will prohibit its tenants from having certain breeds of dogs, including Boston terriers, and will change the weight limit for adult dogs from 40 pounds to 25 pounds.