In E* O* Corp. v. Z*. the petitioner-landlord, E* O* Corp., initiated a holdover proceeding against the respondent-tenant, BZ, citing violations of her proprietary lease and House Rules due to her alleged failure to control her dog's incessant barking.
When the tenant sought summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing that the allegations didn't warrant an eviction proceeding, the New York County Civil Court denied the motion. The court found that the record contained conflicting declarations from various building residents and employees regarding the frequency, duration, and volume of the barking. These discrepancies raised "triable issues of fact," making it inappropriate to resolve the matter on the papers alone.
The Appellate Term, First Department, agreed that the case should proceed to a formal hearing where sworn testimony could be presented and credibility assessed. Additionally, the appellate court declined to consider the tenant’s remaining arguments, as they were improperly introduced for the first time in her reply papers -- which may only address arguments raised in opposition, rather than introduce new theories or claims.
Ultimately, this decision underscores that when material facts remain contested—such as the extent of an alleged lease violation—a trial will be necessary to determine the dispute's merits.
Now that was ruff ....
# # #
DECISION