Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Friedman

205 A.D.2d 303, 613 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5871

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 303 (Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Friedman) 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

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Friedman, 205 A.D.2d 303, 613 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Smyk, J.), entered on or about May 20, 1993, which, after nonjury trial, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff landlord’s failure to commence this action within three months after learning that defendant tenants were harboring a dog in their apartment must be deemed a waiver of the "no pets” provision in the parties’ lease (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2009.1 [b]; see, e.g., Megalopolis Prop. Assn. v Buvron, 110 AD2d 232). We reject plaintiff’s argument that the statutory three-month period is inapplicable absent a finding that a no pet provision is being used as a pretext for a retaliatory eviction or some other bad-faith motive. Concur— Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Smyk, J.), entered on or about May 20, 1993, which, after nonjury trial, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff landlord’s failure to commence this action within three months after learning that defendant tenants were harboring a dog in their apartment must be deemed a waiver of the "no pets” provision in the parties’ lease (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2009.1 [b]; see, e.g., Megalopolis Prop. Assn. v Buvron, 110 AD2d 232). We reject plaintiff’s argument that the statutory three-month period is inapplicable absent a finding that a no pet provision is being used as a pretext for a retaliatory eviction or some other bad-faith motive. Concur— Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 303, 613 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-life-insurance-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack