Tenants Have a Cat!!!

Or thank them for keeping mice out of your property.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 9:36 AM

WOW!!! Tell the tenants its either them or the cat.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 9:47 AM

As a former longtime renter, I can say I was a good, clean tenant, who made many repairs and improvements myself, but also could not live without my cats. In one place I did not even attempt to discuss this with the rental agency, because they were nuts. In my last place, the owner's brownstone, he had an allergy problem and we were upfront. In the end, he agreed to let us move in with our cats. He ended up falling in love with one of them, and they certainly caused no damage to his property. These may well be clean, respectful people who don't see a problem or understand why there might be one. Only a hoarder has a cat smell problem, and very few cats have behavioural pee issues, and even those can be dealt with in a manner that does not damage or stink-ify your property!

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 10:39 AM

ALLERGIC! That is the bottom line here. As someone who is very allergic to dogs I understand where you are coming form with this.
People who aren't allergic think its ok to bring their pets into stores, on planes, and into apartments (with a no pet policy) and don't have an cosideration for anyone else that is around them.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 10:53 AM

I would not take their breaking your no-cat rule as a sign that they will not follow your other rules, although I understand your concern about their having broken your agreement. I know from having picked up two cats in the street in Park Slope in the past year (I wasn't violating a lease and never loved cats, but these poor creatures had been abandoned and would have died)that rescuing a cat and being committed to it is sometimes an act that a person of conscience feels forced into. And if you don't need to, making them choose between scarce housing and the cat may make them abandon the cat.

Good luck.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 11:03 AM

As a landlord, I allow cats but no dogs. Keeps the mice out.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 11:35 AM

"God I hate that expression. It's so used as if everyone happens to have a lawyer on retainer they can just call and chat with, free of charge."

Brooklynnative, being a landlord is being a business owner. As such, one shoud be prepared to pay for the advice of professionals like accountants and attorneys when needed. It's the cost of doing business.

OP, I have a cat, love cats, and think you should be able to ask them to leave regardless of your allergies. You said no cats. They agreed to no cats. They have to get rid of the cat and or go themselves.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 11:42 AM

Approach the situation tactfully. It is possible that the tenant is just cat sitting for a friend. You could say: "I noticed a cat in your window, is it yours? It sure is cute. But do you know why the lease states no pets? It is because your neighbor downstairs and I are allergic to cats." (allow for response)

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 11:44 AM

What happens when the other tenant stops paying their rent because you allowed a cat in a building they chose because it was pet-free? Then you'd have the long drawn out tenant battle that the pro-cat people here are talking about, but you'd be on the losing end. What if, come winter, when windows are closed and the cat's thick winter coat comes in and dander is heavier because of dry air, your or your tenant's alergies act up? You'll have a harder time getting them out because you allowed it all summer.

You don't have to be rude, but do be firm and clear. No pets. Give them a formal letter with a date by which they need to correct the situation after which you will start eviction procedures.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 12:15 PM

"It would be absolutely ridiculous to consult a lawyer over this."

No, Brooklynnative, it wouldn't be. If they broke the lease and you want to know the correct way to start evicting them, you ask your attorney. You only think it's ridiculous because you think they should allow cats.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 12:45 PM

I say eat the cat. Are you chinese?

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 1:18 PM

I agree: go slow. You first need to talk to your tenants. Maybe, and just maybe, it's someone else's cat. But you said no pets--I think that you need to stick to that, if they take an inch here, they'll take a mile somewhere else.

BK is not short of good tenants, maybe you need to make that clear to them.

Advice from a lawyer might be wise with regards to documenting this issue.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 1:42 PM

None of these renters know or care about what's involved with having to remove pet hairs and funk while preparing the space for a new tenant. So please dont take advice from renters.

It's a business you should treat it as such and you will get more respect from your slick tenants.

It's only been 2 months so can you imagine next year? They will take advantage of you.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 1:53 PM

We, too, are alergic to cats and do not allow them in the building. Trust me, it's a VERG big deal if they live even two floors up or down: airways close up and three family members cannot breathe. They end up in the E.R. Our neighbors had the same problem - calmly tell them they must remove the cat as there are health issues and they agreed to that when they signed their lease. Don't let anyone else tell you it's not a big deal -- it is.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 1:58 PM

Renters or not, pet owners know plenty about cleaning, "removing pet hairs and funk", and keeping their homes nice! You have clearly rented to dirty, lazy people... perhaps because your apartment is nasty...?

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 2:02 PM

I see what you're saying Mrs. L... but any time you take a hard line or assume disrespect you're inviting a pattern of conflict that could poison a tenant/landlord relationship.

There's a 90% chance that the problem can be understood without labeling these people as "trouble." What if it's a friend's cat and it's only going to be around for two days? What if they are desperate to have a cat and lied but are basically okay people and want to work it out in a way that's fair to everyone involved? What if they'll pay more rent or a larger security deposit?

(I agree with Jimmy Legs that allergy issues between floors seem a little overblown, if you'll excuse the pun... but it's the landlord's house.)

As a landlord, I understand the value of rules and would certainly *not* ignore the presence of the cat. But I would also keep in mind that having a hard attitude makes mutual understanding impossible, and that my rule might not reflect the best resolution to a conflict for everyone involved.

I think there are ways out of this conflict that preserve the integrity of the landlord without immediately categorizing the tenant as "trouble."

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 2:39 PM

We rent out 2 floors in our brownstone and had a no dog rule and an "other pet on approval" rule. We allowed both our tenants to have cats -- 1 had 2 cats.

Even though we didn't mind the cats -- I find it simply appalling that you specifically told the tenants there was a no pet rule and 2 months later you saw a cat. Allowing for the slight possibility they were only doing a short-term cat-sitting arrangement (which, frankly, most considerate tenants would clear with you first anyway), it truly sounds like they always intended to have a cat (or perhaps already had one), and decided it was too hard to find an apt. that allowed cats, so just lied about it.

I agree you can be gentle in how you approach them -- tell them they signed a lease with a no cat rule, you and the tenants below you are allergic, and that you saw a cat in the window that can't remain. Ask them how they plan to rectify the situation, and expect an appropriate response from them.

I don't understand the posters making excuses for your tenants. I was a tenant for many, many years, and it would never occur to me to simply disregard a major rider in my lease, especially a pet one which everyone is aware of. I have lots of friends with pets, and yes, it's difficult to find an apt. that allows them, but that's the breaks. None of them has ever simply decided to take an apartment that doesn't allow them and have a pet anyway. Your tenants sound like people who feel entitled to do whatever they want, and in general that bodes very badly for their behavior in the future. I don't get how people here are excusing that kind of behavior.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:27 PM

Totally agree w/ Mrs. Limestone and a few others here...But most of the posters above prove why they would be incompetent as judges or arbitrators.

Whether or not the property owner likes cats, and why they have chosen to not allow pets is IRRELEVANT!!!

The renters broke the rules of the lease, which means they have broken the trust between themselves and the property owner.

They'd be gone if it were my property. Once someone lies or attempts to deceive, it's impossible to have confidence in their character again.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:30 PM

get rid of the tenant ASAP. definitely a sign of things to come. sounds like a typical self-entitled a**hole. town is full of them.

(do confirm first that it's theirs and not a visitor's cat)

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:31 PM

I tried that trick on my old landlord and she was totally unyielding when she figured it out. I had to bring my cats to live in my office which had a mouse problem (big sunny carpeted loft space.) A couple of years later the older one (16 yrs old) started pooing on people's work lying around on their office floors and she got kicked out. I brought them home again and the landlady again freaked out, so I had to put the old one to sleep! The younger one came back to the office and starved herself to death she was so heartbroken (mind you she was morbidly obese). A tragic tale - but just shows you what people (i.e., me) in this city will do for real estate...

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:43 PM

"How should I handle the situation without any animosity?"

You shouldn't. Animosity is unavoidable. Next they'll want to start doing renovations. Where does it end?

Professionalism over friendliness. Da cat or da tenant got ta go!

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:47 PM

LEt them keep the cat and get a security deposit for any potential damage. Invest the deposit and make money.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:49 PM

3:30 = voted for Bush. Twice.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:52 PM

What if they were desperate to have a tenant and lied about the heat problem and it's 40 degrees in your apt but they are basically okay people and want to work it out in a way that's fair to everyone involved?

I bet your slick tenants are reading this now while the cat is pissing underneat your radiator. It's gonna be pretty funky once heating season starts.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:55 PM

I'm not 3:30, but that poster sounds like the last person to have voted for Bush. Bush is a spoiled brat who feels entitled to disregard any rules and make his own, just because he's Bush. that sounds exactly like the tenants above. Since 3:30 was critical of the tenants who make their own reality, lie, and attempt to decieve (hmmm, what President has those characteristics?) I seriously doubt he/she would have liked Bush

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:58 PM

You people have no idea how long it takes to evict a tenant in NYC.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:59 PM

"What if they are desperate to have a cat and lied but are basically okay people and want to work it out in a way that's fair to everyone involved?"

What the heck are you on about? The tenant's desperation to have a cat somehow makes it unfair for the landlord to make rules about their property? What was fair was advertising the apartment for rent as a "no pets" apartment and expecting the tenants would not lie.

As for the maybe they are cat sitting or a friend brought it by for a visit theories, get real. Cats don't visit. Cats don't like to leave their home territory and if their owners can't be home to care for them it is irresponsible to do anything other than have someone in to care for the cat. You don't move the cat.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 3:59 PM

I'm a lawyer and if you came to me with this issue, I'd ask you if your allergies were bothering you, if the other tenant with allergies had complained, and then I'd ask you if you had made it clear that no pets didn't mean just no dogs, it also meant no cats, turtles, goldfish, birds, or pet tarantulas. People in this town take "pets" to mean dogs, because dogs bark. I'd also ask you if you'd ever had any mice in your building.

If the answers are what I suspect them to be, I'd tell you to talk to the tenants and see how important their cat is to them and whether they understood "no pets" meant more than just dogs.

If you insist on trying to get rid of them, good luck in housing court. You will appear before a judge probably right after a landlord whose rent-controlled tenant hasn't paid rent in years, and right before a landlord whose rent-controlled tenant has started three fires in the past year and probably should be committed to a nursing home (and also hasn't paid any rent, but that's the least of the landlord's problems, as they will freely admit).

And there you will be, complaining about market-rate tenants who have a cat, evidently a perfectly well-behaved cat who likes to sit in a window, and your issue is that it wasa sign they *might* break some other minor part of their lease sometime in the future?

enjoy.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:18 PM

i am with 3:59 as far as how long it takes to evict a tenant. several months, lawyers fees, etc. i would just talk to the tenant, and express that you are allergic and see if you can come to some type of an agreement (extra security deposit, warning you will evict if allergies flare up, etc).

speaking as a lifelong new yorker, many renters probably do not think you are serious or actually care about the no pet clause. most landlords are absentee and many apartments are in larger buildings, so typically as long as the pet doesn't smell or bark, etc, disturb other neighbors, the no pet clauses are ignored. there are tons of things in a standard lease that are not really enforced until they actually cause harm to someone, and the tenant may have assumed you will look the other way as long as the animal behaves and does no damage. i don't think this makes them untrustworthy, they may just have different experience from your own.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:20 PM

"I brought them home again and the landlady again freaked out, so I had to put the old one to sleep! The younger one came back to the office and starved herself to death she was so heartbroken (mind you she was morbidly obese). A tragic tale - but just shows you what people (i.e., me) in this city will do for real estate..."

This is the kind of person who is on here saying they should get to do whatever they want for the rent they pay. Selfish and irresponsible. You killed your own cat when it was old and sick and in need of care and attention because it was too inconvenient to deal with. Guess what is going to happen to you when you are old? Your landlord will call and have you taken away and put in a home for the indigent because you can no longer care for yourself and you left the stove on or the water running. Don't be to surprised if the nurses don't wipe you and turn you and your bedsores lead to staff infections that cause you a slow and painful death. I hope you remain clear minded enough to remember your cat and landlord when it happens.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm a landlord, and I love cats. When I had them, I kept super-clean. I vaccuumed, scooped, sanitized, and deodorized. So I was pleased to let my tenant keep a cat. Big Mistake. The Smell permeated her entire apartment and even sometimes wafted into my house above. She let the cat out sometimes, and he ate my flowers. She moved in July of last year, and the Smell is only just now gone away. It was everywhere; I couldn't find one particular area to fix or replace, so there was no way to take it out of the deposit. Fortunately we weren't looking for another tenant for that unit, but if we were, we probably couldn't have found one. Should we ever rent it out again, NO CATS.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm not a lifelong NYer, but I've lived here for well over 20 years, most as a renter, and I NEVER understood "no pets" to mean "no dogs but cats are fine". What??? When you own a cat, and you see a lease that says "no pets allowed", you simply ask if a cat is okay. You don't assume a cat is somehow the same as a goldfish or turtle. A PET does not live the vast majority of its life in a cage, a bowl or container.

Sorry, I don't believe the No Pets clause is ignored by everyone. What kind of people do you hang out with, anyway. I guess the people I know are just more considerate.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:31 PM

"many renters probably do not think you are serious or actually care about the no pet clause...there are tons of things in a standard lease that are not really enforced...i don't think this makes them untrustworthy"

It wasn't just in the lease. It was very clear in the ad for the apartment. Get them out now. The tenants are in all likelihood just like many of the posters here who think they get to make their own rules in your property. Being too timid about it will give the impression you are not serious. Don't be rude, but do be clear. The fact that eviction can be a long process means you start it right away, not that you don't bother with it.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:34 PM

4:20's right - I just moved out of an apartment in which the rider said "no pets" but I was allowed to have my two cats there. The super who managed the building was totally fine with it and many people in the building had dogs or cats. Why it had to be included in the rider if it was allowed is beyond my understanding...

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:40 PM

I can't believe anyone who does animal adoptions allows them to go into homes where there's a no pet clause in the lease, just because the person can't be evicted. So a good home for an animal is a person who could care less about the rules -- I'm sure such a person would be a fine pet-owner. I bet they don't follow the rules of the adoption agency at all, but who cares, right?

Of course your first response should be to remind the tenant that there is a no pet policy and that you and the other tenant suffer from cat allergies. It doesn't matter whether the cat is currently affecting you or not, any tenant who doesn't respect an allergy is no one you want living there. If they simply refuse to remove the cat under any circumstances, they are inconsiderate jerks. If you don't want to go through the hassle of evicting them now, just don't renew their lease in 10 months, and make sure you give them a very bad recommendation to the new landlord. If I were you, I'd sign up with a landlord service I once read about in which you can report late rent payments to a credit service so it goes on the tenant's permanent credit report. Because they sound like tenants who also don't think it's necessary to pay their rent on time. If they are model tenants otherwise, you can give them a good recommendation when they leave, but by no means renew their lease -- just because your allergies aren't acting up now doesn't mean you should wait around permanently.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:49 PM

4:40pm -- when you moved into the apartment was it specifically advertised as a "no pets" apartment (and not just something in the rider)? Did you check first with the super and/or whomever you rented the apartment from when you saw that rider in the lease?

Are you really saying that you see an ad for an apt. that says "no pets" (not just in the rider), you go see the apartment knowing you have a pet but still assume it will be completely fine to bring your pets when you move in? I find that hard to believe.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 4:53 PM

4:18 is the worst kind of lawyer to seek advice from. The very 1st question tells you his/her position.

Were you the lawyer for that guy who had a tiger as a house pet a couple years ago?

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 5:07 PM

3:30 here.

3:58 is spot on - I voted against Bush (4 times.) Glad to know someone else out there has a sense of ethics.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 5:25 PM

Agree with you, 5:07pm about the lawyer's advice at 4:18pm. Do you think if a client asked him legal advice about whether he should sign a lease for an apartment that specified "no pets" because the client had a cat, 4:18's "legal advice" would be that it was fine, because in NYC "no pets" is interpreted as "no dogs".

if that were truly NYC landlord law, don't you think the standard riders would be amended so that they said "no dogs or cats or other pets"? If "no pets' means only "no dogs, anything else is fine" legally, landlords are not getting very good legal advice from their lawyers if they put in such a rider.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 5:29 PM

"I can't believe you think people who do animal adoptions would be able to conduct such a background check."

Steve, you're like the new Ysabelle with the crap you're spewing all over the boards today. Many pet adoption agencies require proof that the pet will be kept in a home where it is allowed and they check with your landlord or rental management before handing over the cat/dog. They want to make sure you aren't going to take an animal in and then dump it on the street when you get caught with it by those who actually own your place.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 5:38 PM

slopefarm, have you honestly ever heard of someone who was a cat or dog-ower looking for an apartment who rented an apartment advertised as "no pets" and moved right in without FIRST asking whether their dog/pet was okay? Yes, of course landlords put that in as an overly broad rule, but any pet-owning person knows it is common sense to check first to see if that is the case and not just move in and expect you can live there with a pet. Especially in a very small owner-occupied building. Those of us who are appalled by the tenant's actions aren't telling the OP to start immediate eviction proceedings, but to stand firm on the policy, regardless of whether OP is currently experiencing any allergic reactions. I find all the posters coming up with excuses for the tenant's behavior to be a sad sign of the times. I remember a post many months ago in which some kids of friends had stayed in someone's place and trashed it, and I was also surprised that some people here felt it was the OP's fault for not kicking them out immediately. There's such a thing as ethics and personal responsibility which seems to be lost here. If the tenants here have any, they will of course immediately get rid of the cat as soon as the OP mentions it. But any other behavior is simply inexcusable.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 5:42 PM

The lawyer at 4:18 isn't giving the best advice throughout...

First, I will assume you have your reasons for wanting to enforce that portion of the lease. You did, after all, write it into the rider, so I assume you did intend for it to be part of the agreement.

Second, yes - you should speak with them and educate them that "pets" includes cats (and canaries and pet mice and pet rats and pet lemurs and an ant farm and whatever it is that is not human, as long as it's not a helper animal).

Third, if they agree to get rid of it, GREAT. Still, send a letter to them confirming the conversation and keep a copy on file. If they don't agree to get rid of it (or if they agree verbally but fail to act) send a letter notifying them they are in violation of their lease as per your conversation on ____ date. Send it certified mail with return receipt and keep a copy of the letter.

Fourth, if you really don't want to make it a bigger issue then drop it. If it is a bigger issue and you really want the cat out, then follow through with legal channels.

The lawyer above is really not giving the best advice - if you just speak with them and then later decide you don't want them to have the cat, you're s*** out of luck. If a tenant egregiously keeps a pet at the property (aka: if it's obvious or admitted by them) and you don't do anything about it, you forfeit your right to enforce that portion of the lease later. I'm NOT a lawyer but this is the way the law is handled. I believe you must notify them within 90 days. If they keep the cat with your knowledge for more than 90 days, you are outta luck in the eyes of the court. You knew about it and didn't care enough to make a peep.

Also, the lawyer is wrong - cats can do a LOT of long term damage to a property. We bought our house over a year ago and the previous owner had a cat. On a humid day, we still smell the cat urine, which had permeated the floorboards and the joists and on particularly bad days, I have to take claritin. This is 1 1/2 years after the cat moved out.

In any case, if your property isn't rent stabilized, your last resort is you can always wait until their lease is up and then raise their rent to an amount you feel would compensate for any damages (or an amount which you feel would encourage them to move out).

Main thing is, if they are responsible with the cat and you don't have a problem, you don't have to act on it... but don't expect to be able to act on it later if you don't act now.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 5:49 PM

I can't believe it...68 replies in one day to a thread about a tenant that has an illegal cat...well 69 replies now. I just checked a few to see why there is so much traffic (and maybe some juicy confrontation) about a pussy. I don't even like cats,and am slightly allergic, but animals are so much cleaner/better than people. Let it go...

from a perfact tenant with a big, loving dog, rhat my landlord loves.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 6:31 PM

The solution is simple: wait until they have left the apartment for work or whatever. Then go in and take the cat.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 6:45 PM

All you hardasses have obviously never had to deal with an actual conflict between a landlord and a tenant.

I mean, you can be "right" all day long and that doesn't make housing court easier.

Conflict sucks for both parties. It's in this landlord's best interests to be both firm and open.

Posted by: guest at June 12, 2008 7:29 PM

wow, what a threat, a cat. Puhleeeze. what exactly is your issue with a cat? they don't bark, they are clean and they keep your home free from critters. Get a grip.

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 12:39 AM

Landlord, you have keys. Time for a cat-napping!

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 6:43 AM

Arsenic.

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 8:14 AM

disagree with seahag21's advice to let tenants have cat until your allergies kick in. Yes, you can simply ask your tenants whether they have a cat and explain that you and others have allergies, which is why you specifically advertised it as a "no pets" apt., and it has to go.

If your tenants refuse to get rid of the cat once asked, it is they who are being "overly confrontational", not you. Certainly give them a chance to do the right thing, but if they don't, because they feel they are entitled to ignore a clear-cut "no pets" rule if they please, I bet you dollars to donuts that they will feel entitled to ignore other rules in the future. Any poster here who claims he would rent a no-pets apartment, bring a cat in, and when the landlord requests the cats removal simply say "no", is either lying or a truly inconsiderate person. Is this the way all of you posters defending the tenants would behave? Give the tenants the chance to do the right thing, but please don't act as if the OP is wrong to simply request that of the tenants, and please don't tell me it's not ethically wrong for the tenants to simply say "no".

OP, please let us know what the tenants say to your request for cat removal.

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 10:17 AM

maybe they are cat sitting for someone? ask them before escalating the situation. are they good tenants?

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 10:49 AM

Steve, I don't think the ACC and North Shore are the animal shelters the previous poster might have had in mind. Both places are known for their sloppy, and often unethical, treatment of animals. There are much more thorough organisations out there, too....

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 11:13 AM

Think I'd give them three choices: 1) Get rid of the pet 2) Move out 3)Ask for an additional $1,000 deposit and then another $50 a month.

I love cats, but I also know that cat pee is nearly impossible to get out of wood floors, and cat dander is pretty persistent, especially in carpeting. And cat allergies can be debilitating.

I'm all for being firm and polite on this issue. The vacancy rate is still really low so you shouldn't have a problem finding new tenants if they move out.

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 1:42 PM

Seems like the fur is still flying. I agree for negotiation rather than confrontation. Maybe it will result in kicking out the cat (with or without the accompanying tenants), maybe not, but the legal route is expensive and probably not necessary.

Two comments:
1) Most cats don't travel, as an earlier poster said. Some really social ones do. (Really.)
2) I know someone who moved into a building with a 2 pet policy with four cats. Two were 18-20 years old, the other two were 3 and 4 respectively. The older ones were ill, and died (of natural causes) within 4 months of moving in. She didn't want to break the rules, but this person knew this was to be the likely scenario, and didn't want to abandon her cats even for a few months. And in response to the poster who sadly had to put her/his elderly cat to sleep, be kinder: I'm sure it was a struggle and if the cat was really sick it may have been the best move.

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 4:19 PM

bxgrl, I hope you agree that if the OP reminds the tenant that cats are not allowed, and the cat has to go, this doesn't mean the OP isn't showing compassion toward the tenant. What bothers me in your post, and many others like them, is that there seems to be some judgement upon the op for simply asking his tenant to obey the rules he made very clear before the apartment was rented. It's now in the tenant's hands -- if the tenant doesn't immediately rectify the situation, he is the problem.

Not every issue has 2 sides. If the tenant had signed a lease for an apartment that said nothing about pets and the landlord had later said "by the way, no cats", I'd be siding with the tenant here. But given the circumstances, I don't see any reason to feel compassionate toward the tenant -- why didn't he simply rent an apartment that allowed cats, as many, many people do. Why rent one advertised as "no pets"? The only answer I can think of is that this person feels the rules don't apply to him. "Showing compassion" seems to be a code word for letting the cat stay if it hasn't bothered anyone yet. Clearly, if the op didn't mind, he wouldn't have posted in the first place. He doesn't want a cat in the apartment and was about as up front about it as anyone could be. Somehow I doubt getting $50 more a month is going to make him feel a whole lot better about it.

None of us here are entitled to do whatever we want in this community. There are rules against littering, trespassing, spitting, etc. That doesn't mean we all don't occasionally break them. But if someone catches us littering and asks us to pick up the garbage we just threw in your front lawn, should you show us compassion if we simply refuse and tell us "it's okay", or do you expect us to pick up our garbage and apologize? Everyone makes mistakes, as these tenants did. It's your reaction when you are asked to rectify your mistake that tells the most about your character.

Posted by: guest at June 13, 2008 10:07 PM

bxgrl -- I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I think you are still missing my point. You keeping talking about "compromise". But unless the op changes his mind and decides he'll simply take a chance with his allergies and allow a pet, there's nothing to compromise. There are only 2 possible outcomes -- the cat is allowed to stay or the cat must leave. I suppose a possible "compromise" is that the landlord gives the tenant 2 weeks to get rid of the cat instead of insisting it be gone immediately. I could imagine that scenario, but I hope you would agree with me that the tenant should be extremely grateful for such a compromise and the landlord should be commended for his willingness to compromise after he made it very clear in the beginning that he didn't want a tenant with a cat and the tenant simply rented the place anyway and brought a cat despite full knowledge that the cat wasn't allowed.

I never said that the tenant is the Antichrist for having a cat -- I said that the tenant made a mistake by choosing to rent an apartment that was clearly advertised as "no pets" and living there with a pet. This is only the tenant's "home" because the tenant preferred that apartment to one that might allow pets. I just did a quick Craig's List search for apts. in all NY that allowed cats, and there were more than 48,000. More than 6,000 were in Brooklyn. There are plenty of apartments that allow cats -- but maybe they just weren't in the neighborhood or the price the tenants wanted. Maybe the apartment wasn't as "nice" (maybe because pets had lived there in the past!) But that's the compromise the tenants should have made in the first place. Because most of us know that decisions we make have tradeoffs -- you have a pet and you have to live in a place that allows them. You have a kid and you have to live in a crummy small apartment in a decent school zone or work to improve the schools where you live so you can have a nicer place in a more affordable neighborhood. We'd all like to be rich enough so we never have to make some compromises, but that's life. What isn't fair is to expect other people -- in this case the landlord -- to adjust to your needs because you decided you wanted both the cat and the nice apartment and you couldn't have both without lying about it in the beginning.

Again, the tenant is not a horrible person because he made a mistake and brought the cat. But if the landlord asks the tenant to get rid of the cat, he is not "going in confrontational", he is simply asking the tenant to obey the rules. And, the reaction of the tenant to this reasonable request by the landlord will tell us whether that tenant is a person of character or not. If the tenant resents the landlord for not allowing the cat or acts as if he has done nothing wrong and doesn't immediately rectify the situation, that tenant IS a horrible person. Not the Antichrist by any stretch of the imagination, but not the kind of person I'd want to have any association with. And whether or not that person would win the battle in court is besides the point.

Would you really find admirable a friend who said, "hey, look what I got away with! I found this great apartment that didn't allow cats because the owner was allergic but I liked it so much I decided to rent it and sneak in the cat. My landlord caught me but guess what, I refused to move or get rid of the cat and it's too hard to evict me so I get to stay with my cat, ha ha! Aren't I smart!"

I know the world is full of losers of this sort. But don't expect me to feel compassion for them or try to compromise with them. There are plenty of people struggling in the world that are worthy of compassion, but a tenant who acts like this isn't one of them.

However, if the tenant rectifies his mistake, more power to him. We all make mistakes and I can certainly understand his error in judgement and feel compassion for the choice he had to make. But ONLY if he willingly and unresentfully rectifies his mistake.

Posted by: guest at June 14, 2008 9:40 AM

Sorry, I can't just not respond to some of your remarks, bxgrl, as they are so far off the mark of what I'm trying to say.

"Let's make them do what we want because we can and make then lick our boots too? Gloat much?"

Where did that come from? You seem to be having some knee jerk reaction to landlords in general. I'm talking about this particular instance, where both parties willingly agreed to certain terms up front, and one party decided to specifically go against those terms after the fact. You somehow think that giving that party the choice to either go along with the terms they agreed upon in the beginning or move is wrong; instead, a new "compromise" should be reached that clearly, in your mind, involves the tenant keeping the cat and getting to stay, instead of being given the choice to move or get rid of it. Do I have that right?

I'm not siding with the op because he's a landlord, I'm siding with the op because he is ethically in the right. Let me give you a different scenario -- the tenant moves into an apartment that is advertised up front as having a dishwasher in the kitchen because that is extremely important to the tenant to have -- he hates doing dishes, so he only looked for apartments with dishwashers in his search for a home. The dishwasher is even mentioned in the lease. Two months after moving in, the tenant comes home to find the dishwasher gone and the landlord says, I changed my mind, I don't want you to have a dishwasher anymore. The tenant points out that the dishwasher was one of the things that was specifically advertised, and the landlord says well I'll give you $50 off a month for rent so it's fine.

What if the tenant doesn't care about the reduced rent (if he did, he would have rented a cheaper apartment without a dishwasher in the first place)? The tenant wants a dishwasher. So there's no "compromise" to make: either the landlord replaces the dishwasher or he doesn't. And yes, I would expect that once the tenant tells him he wants the dishwasher, the landlord willingly replaces it and doesn't feel resentful toward the tenant because the tenant simply asked him to abide by the terms they both agreed to up front. The landlord isn't licking the tenant's boots, he's simply doing what is ethically right, even if there is some way in which he could legally get around replacing that dishwasher, because the tenant didn't want to go through the difficult process of forcing him to abide by the contract.

Furthermore, I find it surprising that you feel so understanding toward these poor tenants in their wish to keep their cat. Do you know who I feel compassion for? All the cat-lovers who would have loved to rent that apartment, but did not because it didn't occur to them to cheat. I bet you that there were more than a few cat-owning people who browsed the same Craig's List ad and didn't rent the apartment because it said no pets. Those poor losers are now stuck in less desirable apartment because it didn't occur to them to act in an unethical manner to get what they wanted. Those are the people who deserve your "compassion".

Most of us act ethically, but there are always people who think they can cheat and you know what's sad? That they often get rewarded for it, as you propose these tenants do.

To compare this situation to Germans obeying government imposed rules that harm humanity is truly outrageous. This is about someone cheating to get what they wanted. That person could have found an apartment that allowed cats, but instead cheated to get a nicer or less expensive apartment that didn't allow cats. Sorry, I hardly feel he needs to be compared to those good and brave German citizen who chose not to obey the law and turn in Jews. Do you? The German citizen was putting his life and families at risk to help others and do what was right. The tenants are trying to gain some personal advantage because they wanted a nice place for they and their cat to live.

I agree we need to disagree. Thanks for the dialogue. I think we've both said what we needed now.

Posted by: guest at June 14, 2008 1:45 PM

Okay, I was not trying to twist what you said, so if I did, I apologize, But you are twisting what I said. I did NOT say any tenant who broke the rules was a horrible person, as I understand everyone breaks rules at various times.

What I DID say was that IF a tenant breaks a rule he pretended to agree with in order to move into an apartment and REFUSES to stop breaking the rule when requested, then that tenant is a horrible person. Perhaps horrible was too strong a word to use, so I should clarify and say a completely unethical person. I thought I understood your point to be that the tenant's love for his cat means that such behavior can be excused. Am I twisting your words here? I guess what I'd like to know is a simple yes or no to this answer: if, after the landlord politely asks the tenant to remove the cat, the tenant says "no", is he behaving ethically? Does his love for his cat justify his continuing to live in the apartment with the cat despite the landlord's request? Of course it doesn't because the tenant always had other options, he just didn't like the choices as much.

That is why I felt compelled to correct your comparison with the Germans. If you can't see a difference between someone WILLINGLY agreeing to terms of a contract and then completely disregarding them and someone whose government has established inhumane rules and that person disregards them then you are right, there is no point in continuing this dialogue.

Look, all I am saying is that the tenant chose to rent an apartment that specifically said "no pets" instead of renting one that said cats allowed. That's what most people who have cats do, believe it or not. I call that cheating, and if I was a cat-owning person who chose not to behave as unethically as this tenant and was thus living in a less desirable apartment, I certainly wouldn't want the tenant rewarded for his cheating. I was strongly objecting to your contention that some "compromise" be reached in which both parties were happy. But the only "compromise" that you feel is reasonable involves the tenant keeping his cat, right? I don't want to twist your words, here, so if I'm wrong about that, I'm sorry.

I agree with you that there are times when breaking the rules are justified, but I strongly disagree with you that this is one of them. If that was the case, every person with a dog would be justified in lying about it in order to move into a no dogs allowed building. How do you excuse the tenant not simply moving into a building that allowed pets, as my many, many friends who own cats have done?

Although you claim to see both sides of the issue, you really have no sympathy for the landlord at all. It is clear from what you said that if the landlord doesn't "compromise" and allow the cat to stay under some circumstances, he is being unreasonable.

I really don't mean to twist what you say, so perhaps I am misunderstanding you and we actually agree. I actually do have some sympathy for the tenants, but just because I feel sorry for them doesn't mean that they should get to stay with the cat if the landlord doesn't want them to. Do you agree with that as well?

Posted by: guest at June 14, 2008 4:14 PM

I don't know what the tenant/landlord laws are in NYC but in Jersey if you live in the home it should be easy to get anyone out if you want... just tell them to leave(I'm kidding of course, you have to go through the usual channels). No one can force you to keep someone in a home that you personally live in as well, there are many ways to get someone out. It's an entirely different story if you live somewhere else then where your rental units are, then there can be some long drawn out battles..

I know this because I had a particularly horrible tenant last year who puts this topic to shame. I noticed the tenant wasn't throwing out any garbage over a period of time and started to wonder what was up. I scheduled an inspection and you wouldn't imagine the horrible hell I walked into in the apartment... it was truly unsanitary. I thought I was going to have a horrible time getting them out (I've had tenants before but never had problems so didn't know what I was going to be facing) but once I explained my situation the tenants were given notice to get out and that was that.

It also helped that the lease was up and I had filed a 30 day none renewal of the lease the month before, it is also a private home (I believe 4 units or more is commercial)... I made sure I had all my ducks in order so that they would be out of my property and they wouldn't be in my home for months... you have to be prepared.

Posted by: guest at June 14, 2008 4:36 PM

bxgrl thank you, too for your thoughtful post -- I did misunderstand what your perspective was. I think we do agree and I've enjoyed the dialogue. I'm sorry for the troubles your landlady has endured, and I would like to add that I also believe landlords are often the cause of problems, too, and not always the victims of unethical tenants. Hopefully the op and his tenant can work it out -- I hope we'll get an update at some point. And I'm glad you have a wonderful place to live with your cats :) Sounds like your landlady is lucky to have you living there.

Posted by: guest at June 14, 2008 7:10 PM

I just want to say to bxgrl that your cat story broke my heart. I'm so sorry that happened.

Posted by: guest at June 15, 2008 10:13 AM

As a cat fanatic myself, I still have no sympathy for this tenant.

There are PLENTY of apartments all across NYC that do allow cats and if you really truly cared about your pets you'd actually make the f-ing effort to find an apartment in which the cats can legally, comfortably reside. Without threat of being given away because their owner was too selfish and lazy to find an apartment that allowed cats.

I never had a problem finding an apartment that allowed cats. Nor has any of my friends. It's not impossible to find, gimme a break.

Posted by: guest at June 15, 2008 6:04 PM

Amen!
I mean realy.....Cry me a freaking river already.

A deal is a deal. NO PETS

Posted by: guest at June 15, 2008 10:59 PM

Well, with 98 posts about this already--98 posts!--I doubt anyone will read this, but anyway....

One question that was never asked of the OP regarding his allergies was this: doesn't he go to other people's apartments whose neighbors have cats? I sincerely doubt that he's experienced an allergic reaction from visiting a third-floor apartment in a building with the tenants on the second and fourth floors had a cat.

I'm speaking as someone who can't be in a room with a cat for longer than five minutes without runny eyes/sneezing/wheezing, but I lived in a building where everyone except me had a cat and never had a problem (unless someone invited me to their place for coffee).

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 10:20 AM

Oh, yeah, and just cause I want to be number 100, I venture to say that this is more about "control" than it is about cats.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 10:22 AM

10:20, why does the OP have to explain ANY reason for not wanting cats? If I spent over a million on a building I'd figure I get to set whatever rules I want and if people want to live there they can deal or they can go elsewhere. It's not like this is the only apartment building in all of NYC and these tenants had nowhere else to go.

It just shows such entitlement and dishonesty to be a cat owner and take an apartment that says no cats AND sign something acknowledging they know they don't allow cats. What a loser. I wouldn't want them as my tenant just based on their personality!

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 2:33 PM

I never said the OP had to give a reason, 2:33, but she did choose to provide one. She also said "a rule's a rule," which clearly indicated that strict adherence to this rule was actually what she desired. (Even though she doesn't want to be anal...) Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a building where my landlord bases her decisions on blog comments, especially since neither the rider nor the craigslist post was reproduced, thus allowing an intelligent discussion of what rules the tenants actually signed onto.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 3:01 PM

3:01,

I don't understand why you consider the OP's comment "a rule is a rule" anal. Aren't there rules in our every day life that we have to adhere to no matter how absurd we think they are. If you don't wear your seat belt and you're caught you are given a ticket and penalized for not adhering. Why should the "no pet" rule be any different.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 3:44 PM

Whatev, 3:01.

Forum on this blog is very helpful for many many people. I have received great information here. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with this woman asking for opinions from fellow property owners.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 3:46 PM

3:01 - I can't believe you think that just because the op said " a rule's a rule" you interpret that as because the op only cared about the rule being followed. The op asked a reasonable question and provided the scenario.

But I really don't get at all you insisting that we should all doubt the op because "neither the rider nor the craiglist post was reproduced". What???

Who cares? You know, the op could be making this up out of whole cloth. This isn't a court of law. Everyone here is offering opinions based on the scenario (hypothetical or not) offered by the op. If the facts aren't true, who cares, but as a forum, this isn't about the op's offering proof of their question before they can solicit opinions from others.

Geez, I don't ask whether people really have a plumbing problem when they post. If the OP gave incorrect information and he/she accepts our answers based on it, what good is that for him? What's the point anyway?

When you willingly sign a contract for something, a rule IS a rule. That's the whole point of a contract, that 2 people agree to terms. I hope you never sign a contract with someone and have them decide to break a few significant terms while you are in the middle of it. I can't imagine you'd be so understanding.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 6:15 PM

So did you speak with them? As you can see we all are dying to know.
Whatever deal you made with them I hope you include the innocent tenant who trusted you and rented your cat pee free home. You dont want them sueing you for breaking the agreement you had with them.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 6:20 PM

"I don't want to seem anal, but a rule is a rule."

This was the OP's statement, not mine. And I repeat: without seeing the craigslist posting or the rider that was signed, it is almost impossible to determine if the tenants are actually breaking this rule. (And I say this from both a legal background and as someone who has counseled both tenants and landlords, and as a former tenant and landlord myself.)

Be that as it may, 3:44, I hope you never jaywalk across a NYC street. A rule's a rule, after all. And 6:15, if the OP isn't willing to offer proof, then she's the same as many of the landlords and tenants I've dealt with. Everyone tells their own self-serving side of the story, but the truth is usually somewhere else.

BTW, a leaking fishtank can cause far more damage than a cat. But the OP probably wouldn't have known if her tenants had a 30-gallon tank in their living room.... Just sayin'.

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 8:48 PM

^^^^^The Cat ^^^^^

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 9:47 PM

8:48, I agree that in life, everyone tells their own self-serving side of the story. Again, who cares? We aren't trying to determine the facts here. The only point of this whole discussion is that IF the apt. was advertised as "no pets' and there WAS a rider in the lease about it, then the tenant is wrong for renting the apartment and bringing a cat in it to live. That's it. We can spend another 100+ posts discussion speculating on whether the tenant is in the wrong if the apt. WASN'T advertised as no pets or without a rider, but since that wasn't the question, what is the point? Or we can make up all kinds of scenarios, like, what if the ad said "no pets" but the lease didn't. Then, we can figure out who might be wrong or right. Again, what is the point?

You seem to think we are sitting in some kind of legal judgement in this matter. We are answering the question posed by the OP. That's all. All the answers here don't amount to a hill of beans in a court, in which, you are correct the OP would have to offer some proof.

Also, breaking the law is entirely different than breaking the terms of a contract. But regardless, yes, if you jaywalk and you are caught, you accept your ticket. Same thing if you speed in your car. We all break the law at some point and if we are caught, have to pay the price.

However, this tenant didn't break the law, he broke the terms of the contract he signed with the landlord. Willingly. And while NYC landlord/tenant law may make it near impossible for the landlord to do anything about it, the tenant is still morally and ethically wrong. That is, assuming that facts are as stated, of course. Don't you agree, that if the facts are as stated, the tenant is wrong?

Posted by: guest at June 16, 2008 10:30 PM

As you stated in your first paragraph, we aren't here to determine the facts, but to give advice based on the scenario presented. And yet, by your last paragraph, you understand that we need at least some facts to take a position. I can't tell you how many times I listened to someone's story, gave them advice based on that story--with the caveat that we should speak again when they have the documents that they believe back up their story--only to discover that what they told me originally was completely self-serving and totally wrong. I'm not saying that we're here to sit in legal judgment; I'm saying that to form any kind of judgment, and offer up good advice, a few real facts would be helpful. If you don't need them, that's fine with me. But I'm not going to agree with you without them.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:48 AM

For God's sake shut up already, 9:48.

Who the hell asks for people to provide legal documents on an anonymous public forum? Ever been on the internet before or is this the very first time?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 12:50 PM

Maybe I missed it in the posts above, but the best thing the landlord can do is sit down with the tenant and ask what's up. If thier is a good reason ride with it, if not ask them to remove the pet in a reasonable time frame.

If they don't or won't give them a heafty rent increase the next time around. If they go for it you cover the cost of any percieved risk. If they don't they leave voluntarily and are out of your hair.

NOTE. As a landlord I always put in a no pets without landlords permission clause. It gives me control over the situation, if I like the tenant I say yes to make them happy, if I don't I say no to help ease them out the door.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 3:24 PM

so Martis,
what does that make you since you decided to join us sad, yet fine examples of aholes? Just another sad, after the fact, let me post my smugly superior commentary ahole.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 7:56 PM