Legal Opinion
Ocean Gate Associates Starrett Systems, Inc. v. Dopico
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided June 8, 1981PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Herbert Kramer, J.
The question upon this motion for summary judgment is whether respondents’ need for a dog, because of their severe physical handicaps, is so compelling that an issue of fact is created which may override a concededly otherwise enforceable no-pet clausp in a residential lease. (See Hillman Housing Corp. v Krupnik, 40 AD2d 788; Linden Hill No. 2 Co-op. v Leskowitz, 41 AD2d 741.)
The petitioner cites a number of cases which have upheld his position. For example, Hilltop Vil. Co-op. No. 4 v Goldstein (43 Misc 2d 657, affd 23 AD2d 722) and Lincoln Co-op. Apts.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hilltop Village Cooperative No. 4 Inc. v. GoldsteinAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1964
- Linden Hill No. 2 Cooperative v. LeskowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
- Hillman Housing Corp. v. KrupnikAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Lincoln Cooperative Apartments, Inc. v. ZaifertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
3Cited by3 opinions
- Young v. SavinonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1985
- Doe v. BellNew York Supreme Court · 2003
- Landmark Properties v. OlivoAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2004