Trial Required on Whether Tenant's Pet Ferrets Violate City Law

Facts: Landlord sued to evict tenant for keeping ferrets in his apartment. Landlord claimed that tenant was in violation of his lease for keeping an animal prohibited by city law, or for keeping a pet without landlord's prior consent. Tenant claimed he wasn't violating any city law. He also argued that landlord had waived his right to object to the ferrets, claiming that landlord's building super and other staff knew about the ferrets for at least eight years. Landlord asked the court to rule in its favor without a trial. Court: Landlord loses. Landlord gave up any right to evict tenant for violating the ''no pets'' clause of his lease because he waited well over three months to sue, despite his super's knowledge of the pets. But whether tenant violated city law simply by keeping ferrets was a fact question that required a trial. City law bars the keeping of a type of animal that is ''wild, ferocious, fierce, or naturally inclined to do harm.'' Although the Department of Health (DOH) has interpreted this law as barring people from keeping ferrets as pets, DOH's rule isn't binding. And landlord didn't claim that tenant's pet ferrets had caused damage to the apartment, created a nuisance, or interfered with the safety, health, or welfare of other building residents.

1700 York Assocs. v. Kaskel: NYLJ, p. 30, col. 4 (6/3/99) (Civ. Ct. NY; Billings, J)