Court Opinion

ID: 9959941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:13:34.410545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.402073
License: Public Domain

360 E. 72nd St. Owners Inc. v Wolkoff
               2024 NY Slip Op 31173(U)
                      April 4, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 655998/2021
               Judge: Alexander M. Tisch
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
        PRESENT:            HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH                                         PART   18
                                                                                 Justice
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                            INDEX NO.           655998/2021
         360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC.,
                                                                                            MOTION DATE          10/19/2022
                                                    Plaintiff,
                                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.          003
                                            - V-

         SABRINA WOLKOFF,
                                                                                            DECISION + ORDER AFTER
                                                    Defendant.                                     HEARING

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

        The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 76, 77, 79, 80, 81,
        82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109,
        112,113,114,115,116,117,118
        were read on this motion to/for                                      SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER HEARING)

                  Defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 3212, seeking dismissal of the proceeding. Plaintiff cross-

        moved, pursuant to CPLR 3212 seeking a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction. In an interim

        decision and order dated April 26, 2023, the Court ordered, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the motion

        and cross-motion be held in abeyance and directed the parties to appear, in-person, with evidence and

        witnesses that each side would like to present on the issue of whether the harboring of defendant's pet

        "causes damage to the subject premise, creates a nuisance or interferes substantially with the health, safety

        or welfare of other tenants or occupants of the same or adjacent building or structure."

                 By way of background, defendant is a resident within unit C3503 of a cooperative apartment

        building ("Co-op") located at 360 East 72nd Street in New York County (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, Complaint

        at ,i 2). As a tenant of the building, defendant entered into with the Co-op agreed to abide by a proprietary

        lease for residence within the apartment (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, Complaint at ,i 7). Pursuant to Article 11,

        paragraph four of the proprietary lease, the Board of the Co-op may establish House Rules as the Board

        deems necessary for the management and control of the building (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, Complaint ,i 8).

         655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                                      Page 1 of 11
         Motion No. 003

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 11
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

         A resident's failure to comply with the House Rules is deemed a substantial breach, which, at the

         discretion of the Board, may qualify for possible termination of the resident's proprietary lease.

                The Co-op is a pet friendly building, however, within said House Rules, it is prohibited for pure

         or mixed breeds of Doberman Pinschers, Pit Bulls, and Rottweilers to enter or reside in the building

         (NYSCEF Doc. No. 83, House Rules). Defendant's dog is 91 % American Staffordshire Terrier, which is

         one of the four recognized Pit Bull breeds and is therefore prohibited from the building (NYSCEF Doc.

         No. 99, Plaintiffs Opp.). Defendant contends that she is entitled to a judgment in her favor allowing her

         to keep her dog and maintain resident status in the building, because the Board allegedly had actual

         knowledge of defendant's dog but failed to take action in seeking to remove the dog within the first three

         months of having said knowledge. Due to such delay, defendant argues that plaintiff waived its right to

         enforce the Pit Bull prohibition under New York City Administrative Code § 27-2009.1. Plaintiff contends

         that it is entitled to a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, because New York City

         Administrative Code § 27-2009.1 is inapplicable as the building is pet-friendly and only restricts

         Doberman Pinschers, Pit Bulls, and Rottweilers, which it is alleged interfere substantially with the safety

         and welfare of other tenants and building occupants. Moreover, under the House Rules and defendant's

         proprietary lease, defendant is prohibited from keeping her dog in the building and must remove it.

                NY Code§ 27-2009.1 (b) makes it clear that an owner or his or her agent has three months from

         the time said individual first gains knowledge of an animal to commence a summary proceeding or action

         that seeks the removal of said animal. If the action is not commenced within this three-month period, the

         provision that seeks to remove the animal is deemed waived, regardless of any particularized wording that

         may state otherwise within the relevant building's lease or house rules. See also Seward Park Housing

         Corp. v Cohen, 287 AD2d 157 [1st Dept 2001].

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                    Page 2 of 11
          Motion No. 003

                                                          2 of 11
[* 2]                                                           ~
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                Plaintiff argues that it took "active and timely steps to compel Defendant to cure her violation of

         the House Rule" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 99, Plaintiffs Opp.). Specifically, that on June 11, 2021, plaintiffs

         attorney mailed a letter notifying defendant that she was in violation of the House Rule that prohibited Pit

         Bulls (NYSCEF Doc. No. 89, Bonanno Affidavit at ,r 4). Plaintiffs attorney also served defendant with a

         Notice to Cure on July 26, 2021, and a Notice of Termination of Defendant's Proprietary Lease on August

         30, 2021. As plaintiff alleges, due to defendant's refusal in complying with any of its orders to remove

         her dog from the building, plaintiff commenced this action on October 15, 2021, which is outside of the

         three-month    period   to   commence      an   action   seeking     the   removal   of an     animal   under

         NY Code§ 27-2009.1 (b). Due to such delay, and pursuant to NY Code§ 27-2009.1 (b), the Court held

         in its interim decision and order that plaintiffs lease provision prohibiting the presence of Pit Bulls in the

         building is deemed waived, and plaintiffs waiver clause in the proprietary lease has no effect, as the

         statute is binding (NYSCEF Doc. No. 124).

                However, the Court also held that subdivision (d) of§ 27-2009.1 provides that "[t]he waiver

         provision of this section shall not apply where the harboring of a household pet causes damage to the

         subject premise, creates a nuisance or interferes substantially with the health, safety or welfare of other

         tenants or occupants of the same or adjacent building or structure" (NY Code § 27-2009 .1 (d) ). Defendant

         argues that

                 "the pet's breed or supposed lineage of the dog is not evidence of nuisance, objectionable
                behavior or any dangerous propensity" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 76, Plaintiffs NOM at ,r 32).
                "One allegation of any objectionable behavior cannot form the basis of a nuisance
                complaint. Herein, it is indisputable that the plaintiff has raised only one instance of
                objectionable behavior, that of chasing the process server at the apartment front door. There
                are no other allegations against the dog. As such, the one allegation of instance of
                objectionable behavior is not sufficient to support a claim of nuisance. The defendant
                emphatically denies that her puppy is undergoing some sort of aggression training or being
                'weaponized' to attack on command. The defendant's dog Arthur has attended and passed
                the American Kennel Club Dog Good Dog program" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 76, Plaintiffs
                NOM at ,r 34-37).

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                     Page 3 of 11
          Motion No. 003

[* 3]                                                      3 of 11
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                Plaintiff, submitted the affidavit of Kevin Zucker, a licensed process server who asserts that upon

         handing defendant her Notice of Termination, defendant "let her dog out of the apartment door to attack

         [Zucker]. The dog ran at [Zucker] and attempted to bite [Zucker]" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 97, K. Zucker Aff

         at ,r 3). Plaintiff also provided an email from a shareholder of the building who states that before entering

         an elevator in the building, and as defendant was exiting said elevator with her dog, defendant allegedly

         told the shareholder's 3-year-old child to "back away because the dog will eat him" (NYSCEF Doc. No.

         81, Shareholder Email). The Court held in its interim order and decision that a hearing was required to

         determine if the waiver exception applies.

                 The hearing commenced on May 23, 2023 and continued on June 12, 2023. Plaintiff called seven

         witnesses but only three directly testified as to whether the defendant's dog fits into the exception to the

         waiver provision in § 27-2009 .1 (d). The first witness called was Kevin Zucker who was a licensed process

         server who visited the building to serve the defendant (NYSCEF Doc. No. 126, p. 85-87). Zucker testified

         that he heard the dog when he knocked on defendant's door and that after he gave the defendant the papers

         the "next thing I know the dog - you know, she left the door open, and the dog is coming at me, and I'm

         running down ... " (NSYCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 87). The "next thing I know the dog is coming at me. And

         then ... there happened to be a fire exit door literally almost right next to her door, maybe a little distance.

         And I just beelined for that." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 88). He further testified that he was afraid of

         the dog because "he was pretty agitated at me for sure. He was barking from the time I had knocked on

         the door. And Pit Bulls ... are [a] little different than regular dogs ... The dog was chasing me, yes."

         (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 88-89). He further testified that the dog was unleashed while the apartment

         door was open (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 89, 93). Zucker testified that the dog never touched him

         (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 93). The dog didn't bite him (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 95). When he got

         downstairs, Zucker reported the incident by phone to his supervisor, Jeff Wittenberg, who testified and

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                       Page 4 of 11
          Motion No. 003

                                                            4 of 11
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

         confirmed Zucker's account and further said he would not allow his personnel to serve any more papers

        on the defendant (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 6, p. 98-102).

                Plaintiff called Robert Greebel, a resident on the 28th Floor in the same C wing of the Co-op as

        the defendant, who testified about a February 27, 2022 occurrence when he and his three year old son

        were waiting for the elevator on their floor (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 67). Greebel testified that the

        elevator door opened and he saw the defendant and her dog. After they stepped back the defendant said

        "you better step back or he'll eat you" while looking at his Greebel's son (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 67).

        He memorialized the incident in an email and reported it to a building employee, Luis Perez (NYSCEF

        Doc. No. 136, p. 67-68, 77, 103-104). Greebel further testified about his discomfort in being in an elevator

        or common area with the dog and that he would avoid the elevator with his kids when the dog is present

        (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 68-70). "Ms. Wolkoff is not [a] particularly pleasant resident." (NYSCEF

        Doc. No. 136, p. 79). He never asked defendant to remove dog so he could ride in elevator (NYSCEF

        Doc. No. 136 p. 81).

                Plaintiff also called Luis Perez, residential manager of the building, to testify essentially to how

        the video camera system works in the public areas of the building. On cross-examination Perez testified

        that he has known the defendant's dog for roughly two to three years and when denied that he had observed

        defendant's dog do "anything bad or objectionable." (NSYCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 109). The dog had been

        in his office and that he would "pet him" and "sometimes he actually falls asleep on my feet (NYSCEF

        Doc. No. 136, p. 109-1 I 0).

                Additionally, plaintiff called Mitchell Rutter, a resident of the 18th Floor in the same C wing of

        the Co-op as the defendant who testified about an April 25, 2023 occurrence when he was about to enter

        the Co-op foyer and saw the defendant and her dog inside (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 7, p. 126-127).

        Defendant "walked towards me with the Pit Bull yelling at me (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 7, p. 127). Rutter

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                   Page 5 of 11
          Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 11
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

         backed out of the area afraid that the defendant's demeanor could set the dog off as the defendant

         continued to yell at him saying "use the back entrance" to the building (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 7, p. 128).

         Rutter further testified that the defendant used the dog to "block his way into the building." (NYSCEF

         Doc. No. 137, p. 128-129). The event is corroborated by both Perez and video (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137,

         p.105-106). Perez testified that Rutter's demeanor was "nervous, upset and agitated." (NYSCEF Doc.

         No. 136, p. 108). Rutter also made a report of the occurrence to Robert Weiner, the Co-op board president,

         who also confirmed the account (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 58-60).

                Further, plaintiff called Jeanette Jiminez (formerly Rodriguez) the managing agent of the Co-op

         to testify essentially as to documents that were sent to and received by the defendant concerning her dog.

         On cross-examination she testified that she was personally familiar with defendant's dog who she

         volunteered is named "Archie." She further testified that she had touched and petted the dog (NYSCEF

         Doc. No. 136, p. 121). She also testified that in her personal experience she had not found the dog to be

         aggressive or dangerous (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 121-122). She had not experienced any difficulties

         with the dog (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 122).

                In addition, plaintiff called the aforementioned Robert Weiner, who testified to the rules of the Co-

         op and how, in his view, defendant did not follow them. He gave no testimony about his own interactions

         with the defendant's dog.

                Defendant called Bledar Diko, a handyman in the Co-op, who testified that he escorted the process

         server up to defendant's apartment and knocked on the door and when the door opened "the dog came out

         and then Ms. Wolkoff. The dog came to me, friendly" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 127). He answered in

         the affirmative that the dog went straight to him "so I can pet him and stuff" and that when he turned

         around the process server was gone (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 127-128). He said the dog didn't lunge

         or chase the process server (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 129).

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                    Page 6 of 11
          Motion No. 003

[* 6]                                                     6 of 11
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                Additionally, defendant called Glen Roberts, a resident in the same C wing of the Co-op as the

         defendant, who testified that he has been in the elevator with defendant's dog and nothing "bad" happened

         (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136, p. 139). He testified that he was in the elevator with Greebel, Greebel's wife

         and his children when he observed a negative interaction or confrontation between defendant and Greebel.

         He heard defendant say "be careful" to Grcebel and said it was not directed towards Greebel's children

         (NYSCEF Doc. No. 136 p. 140-141).

                Further, defendant produced Jerry Thorton, a resident of the C wing of the Co-op, who testified

         that he has met defendant's dog "numerous times" and pets and touches the dog every time he sees him

         (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 7, p. 3). He further testified that the dog does not make him fearful (NYSCEF

         Doc. No. 1     p. 4). He responded "never" when asked if he has ever witnessed the dog do anything

         objectionable (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137, p. 5).

                In addition, Defendant called Elizabeth Steed, a resident of a nearby building, who testified that

         she knows defendant and her dog because she frequently takes care of and walks defendant's dog with

         other dogs as a dog sitter (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137, p. 12). She walks defendant's dog with Jane

         Kopelman~s therapy dogs and that defendant's dog could not be with them ifit didn't have a certain good

         temperament. She said the dog acts "perfectly excellent" with the other dogs. She has known the dog for

         over two years. She further testified that she has never observed a problem with the dog riding in a small

         elevator in her building or in its interactions with children (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137, p. 15).

                Fina11y, defendant testified that her dog is registered and electronically chipped and was trained

         with the American Kennel Club and is part of the club (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 7 p. 30-32). She said that

         the certificate essentially renders her dog "a well-behaved good citizen." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137 p 34).

         Defendant introduced into evidence a large number of photographs of people, mostly residents, in the

         building with her dog, in many cases petting it (NYSCEF Doc No. 137 p. 45-68). Defendant was asked

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                  Page 7 of11
          Motion No. 003

[* 7]                                                      7 of 11
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

         if the dog has any problem riding in elevators with people and she answered "no elevator. Not even

         subway." She admits that "[t]here are a handful of people that are afraid of the dog" and that she lets

         people who ask to not ride elevator with the dog "go first." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137 p. 68). She also

         testified that since she is on the 35 th Floor and usually in the elevator first that she would have "no

         problem" leaving the elevator with the dog if asked although that doesn't happen often (NYSCEF Doc.

         No. 137 p. 69). She denies the accounts of the process server Kevin Zucker and Robert Greebel (NYSCEF

         Doc. No. 137 p. 73-75). On cross-examination defendant stated that her dog is not a Pit Bull because her

         daughter did a DNA test and "no Pit Bull came out of it." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137, p. 79-80). She did

         know that it is a "Staffordshire Terrier, I didn't know that was Corsican and Mastiff, but I knew that was

         a Staffy." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137 p. 81). Defendant stated that her dog is not trained to attack people in

         response to questioning about how physically large and muscular the dog is, how large the jaw of the dog

         is. Defendant denies she knew about a building prohibition about Pit Bulls (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13 7 p.

         105). She did not remove the dog from the Co-op when "the building started a whole uproar" because she

         asserts that her dog is not a Pit Bull (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137, p. 105-106). When asked about the Michell

         Rutter incident defendant stated that he precipitated it by filming her from the sidewalk on his phone and

         "screaming" at her about her keeping the dog in the Co-op. She denies blocking his entrance into the

         lobby (NYSCEF Doc. No. 137 p. 106-109).

                After considering the hearing testimony and evidence presented during the pendency of this action,

         the Court finds no basis to revisit its decision in the interim decision and order concerning the three-month

         open and obvious rule set forth in New York City Administrative Code§ 27-2009.1. Plaintiff elicited

         testimony from defendant and others on this issue about defendant's knowledge about the Co-op rules and

         whether her Pit Bull ownership was "open and notorious." But these issues were decided by the Court in

         its interim decision and order and the testimony failed to reveal anything to cause the Court to revisit them.

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                     Page 8 of 11
          Motion No. 003

[* 8]                                                      8 of 11
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

        Sending letters, or even attempting to terminate the proprietary lease, within the three-month time frame

        does not substitute for commencing a summary proceeding or action. This may serve to discourage parties

        from working out issues without having to resort to litigation but that is the law as it is written and how it

        has been interpreted by the courts. The Court is similarly unpersuaded by plaintiffs argument that NY

        Code § 27-2009. I was intended to apply only to cases where a building has a blanket no pet policy and

        not buildings where there are restrictions of certain pets. Nor is the Court persuaded by plaintiffs

        argument that cooperative buildings are exempt from the law. "[C]ourts are obliged to interpret a statute

        to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it

        should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used" (People v Williams, 37

        NY3d 314, 317-318 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). The "text itself is generally

        the best evidence" of the legislature's intent (Colon v Martin, 35 NY3d 75, 78 [2020] rearg dismissed, 38

        NY3d 1122 [2022]), as "a court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there, nor will a

        court read into a statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to enact" (Matter of Chemical

        Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 3 94 [1995], rearg denied 85 NY2d 1033 [1995] [internal

        quotation marks and citation omitted]).

               Plaintiff essentially presented a case about how dangerous Pit Bulls in general can be, albeit

        without any expert testimony to support that position, and that several residents of the Co-op are afraid of

        Pit Bulls. But this only establishes why the Co-op set forth a no Pit Bull policy to begin with. However,

        fear, or the purported danger, of a certain breed of dog isn't enough to trigger a NY Code§ 27-2009.1 (d)

        waiver. In fact, based on this Court's holding in its interim order, and reaffirmed above, the fact that

        defendant's dog is a Pit Bull is irrelevant to this analysis. Any dog that is banned by the House Rules of

        the Co-op that meets the criteria for the waiver exception to the three-month rule pursuant to

        NY Code § 27-2009.1 (d) can be subject to a removal order. To hold otherwise, by adapting plaintiffs

         655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                     Page 9 of 11
         Motion No. 003

[* 9]                                                     9 of 11
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

         arguments that all Pit Bulls because of their "inherent" dangerous nature interfere substantially with the

         "health, safety and welfare" of people in the Co-op, would render the three-month open and obvious rule

         meaningless with respect to Pit Bulls - or any other dog the Co-op has banned. Therefore, it was

         incumbent on the plaintiff to establish that defendant's specific dog fits within the exception based on its

         actual behavior.

                 Plaintiff did not even try to establish that the defendant's dog caused any damage to the Co-op.

         The plaintiff also failed to establish that the defendant's dog was a nuisance. The only occurrence

         presented by the plaintiff that could reasonably be considered an example of the dog interfering with a

         person's "health, safety, or welfare" was through Kevin Zucker's testimony, which was challenged by

         both the defendant and the plaintiffs own employee, Bledar Diko, who were the only other witnesses to

         the event. Even with the Court crediting Zucker's testimony as a reflection of what occurred, defendant's

         dog caused him no physical harm that impinged on his "health, safety or welfare." In addition, the Zucker

         incident is the only such occurrence presented to the Court, which negatively impacts the "interfere

         substantially" requirement of the waiver requirement. The defendant's interaction with Robert Greebel

         in the elevator, if the Court was to credit his account, doesn't rise to the level of impinging on his "health,

         safety or welfare" as the dog itself did not threaten or menace Greebel. The alleged threatening statement

         was by the defendant. Similarly, the defendant's interaction with Mitchell Rutter in the lobby did not

         show concerns about her dog's actual behavior, but that of the defendant. Ultimately, what the testimony

         makes clear is that there are significant personality conflicts between the defendant and some other

         residents of the Co-op that do not have to do with the actual behavior of her dog- but rather her ownership

         of it, and those residents' fear of its breed.

                 In making its determination, the Court credits the testimony of the numerous witnesses - including

         witnesses called by and employed by the plaintiff - who testified about their own positive interactions

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                      Page 10 of 11
          Motion No. 003

[* 10]                                                    10 of 11
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 655998/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 132                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

         with the defendant's dog as supporting defendant's position that the dog does not interfere substantially

         with the "health, safety and welfare" of people in the Co-op. None of these witnesses testified that they

         have seen the defendant's dog behave in a violent way over a period of several years. Nor did any testify

         that the dog caused any damage or was a nuisance.

                 Therefore, the Court finds that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence

         that the defendant's harboring of her dog caused "damage to the subject premise, create a nuisance or

         interfere substantially with the health, safety or welfare of other tenants or occupants of the same or

         adjacent building or structure" as set forth in NY Code§ 27-2009.1 (d). In making this decision the Court

         recognizes, and has serious concerns about, the occurrence with Kevin Zucker, even if this one instance

         of the dog's apparent agitation did not impact his "health, safety or welfare" and does not rise to the

         "interfere substantially" level required by law for the waiver exception to apply. That being said, the

         Court encourages the defendant to continue to adhere to her stated practice of leaving the elevator with

         her dog if another person requests that she do so. It also might be the best practice for defendant to use

         an alternate means of egress in and out of the Co-op other than the main entrance when with her dog so

         as to limit its interactions with persons who have a genuine fear of Pit Bulls.

                 The Court has considered all remaining arguments advanced by plaintiff in support of the relief

         sought in this action and find them to be without merit.

                 Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the action is granted, and

         the plaintiffs cross-motion is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                  04/04/2024
                    DATE                                                         ALEXANDER M. TISCH, J.S.C.
          CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                        GRANTED          □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART                □ OTHER
          APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER
          CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT          □ REFERENCE

          655998/2021 360 EAST 72ND STREET OWNERS INC. vs. WOLKOFF, SABRINA                       Page 11 of 11
          Motion No. 003

[* 11]                                                     11 of 11