There's been a development in a case we blogged about last year .
Last February, we told you about Sirii Marvits -- a senior citizen who has lived in a rent-controlled West Village apartment for over 40 years.
Marvits shared her home with two cats, Apollo and Athena, and, in February of 2005, Marvits' landlord, 184 W. 10th St. Corp., started a holdover proceeding against her, alleging that her animals' presence violated the lease's "no pets" provision.
After finding that the landlord had waived the violation because of New York City's "Pet Law," (NYC Administrative Code section 27-2009.1[b]) -- a law which requires an eviction case be started within three months of a landlord's knowledge of a pet's existence -- a New York County Civil Court judge ruled in Marvits's favor.
Marvits established that the cats had continuously occupied the apartment since January 1997 and, on numerous occasions, the building's managing agent, super, together with independent contractors and other employees had been in the apartment for inspections and repairs, and on all those occasions, the animals and their accoutrement had been visibly apparent.
Seven months after Marvits's victory, the landlord made a motion to reargue the outcome pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) and, surprisingly, the court reversed its earlier decision and awarded possession to the owner.
An appeal to the Appellate Term, First Department, ensued.
Characterizing it as a threshold matter, the AT1 noted that the motion to reargue should have been denied as untimely. The majority was also of the view the landlord waived any objections to the cats' existence back in August 2000 when the landlord's agent, super and contractors made multiple visits to the unit.
Earlier today, the Appellate Division, First Department, chimed in and affirmed the case's dismissal. It felt the animals' presence had been known to the owner for a prolonged period of time and, because the case should've started sooner, Apollo, Athena and Marvits all get to remain in their rent-control abode.
Has this cat fight come to an end or will the Court of Appeals get to play in the sandbox?
Our congratulations to Ms. Marvits's counsel, Steve De Casto. (And our regrets to our friend, Paul Gruber, who represented the landlord.)
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: 184 W. 10th St. Corp. v Marvits
To view our prior post on this case, please use this link: The Gods Must Be Crazy