house rule in New York

1982Where lease of a co-operative apartment provided for the right of re-entry upon continued violation of a house rule by lessee, one of such rules forbade harboring of animals without express permission of the lessor in each instance and lessee harbored the dog in knowing and willful violation of her obligation, neither waiver nor estoppel, allegedly arising from presence of other dogs in the building, could serve as a barrier to summary eviction proceeding. (930 Fifth Corp. v King, 40 AD2d 140 .) Landlord may dispossess tenant who keeps a dog in violation of cooperative apartment house agreemen

1977In paragraph 15 the lessee "covenants to obey all such [house] rules and see that they are faithfully observed”, and finally, the lease provides that "if the Lessee shall at any time be in default hereunder and the Lessor shall incur any expense (whether paid or not) * * * in instituting any action or proceeding based on such default, the expense thereof to the Lessor, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements, shall be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor, on demand, as additional rent.” In a prior summary proceeding the defendant was found to have willfully violated a house rule res

2022Here, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the board's adoption of the house rule was not authorized by the condominium bylaws, and thus, the adoption of that rule was not protected by the business judgment rule ( see Yusin v Saddle Lakes Home Owners Assn., Inc. , 73 AD3d 1168, 1171 ; Strathmore Ridge Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Mendicino , 63 AD3d 1038 ).

2022Here, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the board's adoption of the house rule was not authorized by the condominium bylaws, and thus, the adoption of that rule was not protected by the business judgment rule ( see Yusin v Saddle Lakes Home Owners Assn., Inc. , 73 AD3d 1168, 1171 ; Strathmore Ridge Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Mendicino , 63 AD3d 1038 ).

2022Since neither the condominium bylaws nor the condominium declaration of covenants, restrictions, easements, charges, and liens (hereinafter the declaration) contained any restriction on the size of dogs permitted on the condominium premises, the house rule constituted an amendment of a permitted use of the plaintiff's unit, which, pursuant to Article X of the condominium bylaws, required approval by 66⅔% of the homeowners at a noticed meeting, and an amendment to the declaration ( see Gabriel v Board of Mgrs. of the Gallery House Condominium , 130 AD3d 482 ; Board of Mgrs. of Vil.

2022Since neither the condominium bylaws nor the condominium declaration of covenants, restrictions, easements, charges, and liens (hereinafter the declaration) contained any restriction on the size of dogs permitted on the condominium premises, the house rule constituted an amendment of a permitted use of the plaintiff's unit, which, pursuant to Article X of the condominium bylaws, required approval by 66⅔% of the homeowners at a noticed meeting, and an amendment to the declaration ( see Gabriel v Board of Mgrs. of the Gallery House Condominium , 130 AD3d 482 ; Board of Mgrs. of Vil.

2020"The location of [the] arrest is dispositive of [a Payton ] claim" ( People v Pearson , 82 AD3d 475, 475 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 809 [2011]), and as noted above, the court properly found that defendant was arrested, i.e., subjected to "a significant interruption of [his] liberty of movement as a result of police action" ( People v Brown , 142 AD3d 1373, 1375 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1123 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]), at the threshold of his apartment.

2020Contrary to defendant's contention, the fact that the police immediately "pushed or guided" him three feet inside the apartment after he was arrested in order to search him does not establish that the arrest itself occurred inside the house in violation of the Payton rule ( see People v Correa , 55 AD3d 1380, 1380 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]; see also People v Rosario , 179 AD2d 442, 442 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 1053 [1992]).

2020"The location of [the] arrest is dispositive of [a Payton ] claim" ( People v Pearson , 82 AD3d 475, 475 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 809 [2011]), and as noted above, the court properly found that defendant was arrested, i.e., subjected to "a significant interruption of [his] liberty of movement as a result of police action" ( People v Brown , 142 AD3d 1373, 1375 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1123 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]), at the threshold of his apartment.

2006Since the parties agree that the cooperative’s governing documents require that its house rules, including modified House Rule 28 at issue, be “reasonable,” and as such, must be reviewed under a standard of reasonableness, rather than the business judgment rule ordinarily applicable to cooperative board actions (see Ludwig v 25 Plaza Tenants Corp., 184 AD2d 623 [1992]), we need not reach the question of what language must be included in a proprietary lease drafted before Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave.

2004(Plaintiffs' exhibit 65 [Goodman hearing transcript at 71{** 3 Misc 3d at 453 }-72].) Because of the loss of the operations control center, the Port Authority lost the ability to communicate with tenants and their employees in the complex, and to institute its emergency evacuation procedures.

2003Landlord’s reliance upon our decision in Cannon Point N. v Abeles ( 160 Misc 2d 30 [1993]) as warranting summary judgment in its favor is misplaced, as in that case the board promptly moved to enforce a new house rule.

2003Landlord’s reliance upon our decision in Cannon Point N. v Abeles ( 160 Misc 2d 30 [1993]) as warranting summary judgment in its favor is misplaced, as in that case the board promptly moved to enforce a new house rule.

2003On this record, questions of fact exist as to whether the board may be said to have waived enforcement of the house rule (see, Dice v Inwood Hills, supra).

1983His findings of probable cause and exigency, being based upon facts that may reasonably be found and inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the record, will not be disturbed by us (People v Stone, 57 NY2d 762 ; People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470 ; People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214 ).

1983His findings of probable cause and exigency, being based upon facts that may reasonably be found and inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the record, will not be disturbed by us (People v Stone, 57 NY2d 762 ; People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470 ; People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214 ).

1983His findings of probable cause and exigency, being based upon facts that may reasonably be found and inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the record, will not be disturbed by us (People v Stone, 57 NY2d 762 ; People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470 ; People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214 ).

1977In paragraph 15 the lessee "covenants to obey all such [house] rules and see that they are faithfully observed”, and finally, the lease provides that "if the Lessee shall at any time be in default hereunder and the Lessor shall incur any expense (whether paid or not) * * * in instituting any action or proceeding based on such default, the expense thereof to the Lessor, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements, shall be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor, on demand, as additional rent.” In a prior summary proceeding the defendant was found to have willfully violated a house rule res

1972In this warrantless search, when the officers presumed to look into closed and hidden places in all parts of the apartment, they were not only clearly acting outside the scope of the original purpose of the police entry into the apartment, but also indulging in a general search of the entire house in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, as expressed in Chimel (supra).

1933(Sewell v. Underhill, 197 N. Y. 168 .) This acceptance and occupancy by the plaintiff of the house was a waiver of any possible breach by the defendant by reason of any delay in installing a proper water system and such delay was thereby excused.