When they were threatened with eviction for keeping a dog in their apartment, Norma and Marc Schwartz responded by claiming that they were protected by New York City's Pet Law -- Administrative Code ยง 27-2009.1 -- because the animal's existence had been "open and notorious" for more than three months.
After the Queens County Civil Court dismissed the landlord's case, and also denied the tenants' request for attorney's fees, the parties appealed.
While the Appellate Term, Second Department, agreed the owner was time-barred, and wasn't able to evict based on a purported violation of a "no pet" restriction, the Schwartzs' unfulfilled assurance that they would address the owner's objection prevented them from recovering fees.
What a world, what a world.
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Toledo Mut. Hous. Corp. v. Schwartz