Board of Managers of the Parkchester North Condominium v. Quiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of the Parkchester North Condominium v. Quiles

234 A.D.2d 130, 651 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12505

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 130 (Board of Managers of the Parkchester North Condominium v. Quiles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Managers of the Parkchester North Condominium v. Quiles, 234 A.D.2d 130, 651 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered October 17, 1995, which granted plaintiff condominium’s motion to reargue its prior motion for summary judgment permanently restraining defendants from harboring dogs or other pets in their unit, and upon reargument, granted the motion and directed defendants to remove all dogs and other pets from the premises, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Reargument was properly granted on the basis of a decision of a Judge of coordinate jurisdiction, in a case involving not only the same issue but the same plaintiff, rendered shortly after the original order. Clearly, consistency between the decisions was warranted. On the merits, we agree that the Pet Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2009.1 [a]), which refers only to "covenants contained in multiple dwelling leases”, is not applicable to condominiums, which are a form of fee ownership (Frisch v Bellmarc Mgt., 190 AD2d 383). We disagree with the Second Department that condominiums should be deemed covered by the Pet Law because not explicitly excluded (see, Board of Mgrs. v Lamontanero, 206 AD2d 340). It was because of the singular reference to leases or rental agreements in the warranty of habitability (Real Property Law § 235-b) that we likewise refused to apply it to condominiums (Frisch v Bellmarc Mgt., supra, at 388). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered October 17, 1995, which granted plaintiff condominium’s motion to reargue its prior motion for summary judgment permanently restraining defendants from harboring dogs or other pets in their unit, and upon reargument, granted the motion and directed defendants to remove all dogs and other pets from the premises, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Reargument was properly granted on the basis of a decision of a Judge of coordinate jurisdiction, in a case involving not only the same issue but the same plaintiff, rendered shortly after the original order. Clearly, consistency between the decisions was warranted. On the merits, we agree that the Pet Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2009.1 [a]), which refers only to "covenants contained in multiple dwelling leases”, is not applicable to condominiums, which are a form of fee ownership (Frisch v Bellmarc Mgt., 190 AD2d 383). We disagree with the Second Department that condominiums should be deemed covered by the Pet Law because not explicitly excluded (see, Board of Mgrs. v Lamontanero, 206 AD2d 340). It was because of the singular reference to leases or rental agreements in the warranty of habitability (Real Property Law § 235-b) that we likewise refused to apply it to condominiums (Frisch v Bellmarc Mgt., supra, at 388). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 130, 651 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-the-parkchester-north-condominium-v-quiles-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack