Despite Pets Ban, Teacup Terrier OK In NYC Condo

NEW YORK (AP) — The no-pet rule does not apply to teacup terrier Charlie.

A court says Donata Forman can keep her 3.5-pound Yorkshire pup at her Queens condo — despite a building ban on pets.

“I’m really happy,” Forman told 1010 WINS’ Carol D’Auria. “He’s my buddy — I take him everywhere, everybody loves him.”

1010 WINS’ Carol D’Auria reports

The appellate court ruled that the condo board’s so-called “House Rule No. 1” was invalid. It states that “no pets are allowed in the building for any reason.”

The New York Law Journal reported the Nov. 3 decision Wednesday.

The court said the no-pets rule was imposed by the condo board, but not approved by 80 percent of the unit owners as required.

The condo board fought for three years to evict Charlie. The board spent $100,000 on lawyers and the cost is now being passed on to the condo owners — roughly $4,200 apiece.

“Nobody in the build is too happy with me right now because it’s costing everybody a lot of money and it’s not fair to the homeowners, I feel terrible,” Forman said.






(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

More from Carol D'Auria
  • nrasmuss

    As far as passing along the costs of this litigation, if the tenants are truly upset, it sounds like there’s a fiduciary issue here: board members spent money (tenants’ money), enforcing a rule that they knew (or should have known!) was technically invalid…

  • $100K battle over pet in condo

    […] A Queens, N.Y. condo owner won her battle to keep her teacup terrier on the premises after a judge found that the condo board had not, as required, obtained the votes of 80 percent of unit owners before adopting a no-pet rule. “The board spent $100,000 on lawyers and the cost is now being passed on to the condo owners — roughly $4,200 apiece. ‘Nobody in the [building] is too happy with me right now because it’s costing everybody a lot of money and it’s not fair to the homeowners, I feel terrible,’ [the winner] said.” [CBS New York] […]

  • Pets Get to Stay in Homes! » The Happy Pet World

    […] news!  A court in New York ruled that a dog was allowed to stay in his […]

  • Despite Pets Ban, Teacup Terrier OK In NYC Condo –

    […] more on CBS New York This entry was written by admin, posted on November 12, 2010 at 9:43 am, and filed under […]

  • OAS

    It’s people like this woman that are making living in NY more intolerable everyday. She moves in – CLEARLY saw the sign saying “NO PETS” and gets one anyway. And she is totally unapologetic – doesn’t care – like so many of the recent NY residents it seems. People like her (and her little dog)…need to understand there are RULES and they must abide by them or find themselves in the street – where she clearly belongs.

  • Sheri

    Dante…obviously you have no clue!!! It’s a thaness job they VOLUNTEER To do. If they do it right…many times it’s a full time job. The nobody else wants to do. Why would they…then they would have to give up sitting on their butts complaining. You should be kissing your boards feet …. At least they stepped up. You don’t like the job their doing….TAKE THEIR PLACE!!!!

  • T

    Boy! Is he ever handsome! Anyone who thinks other than that needs a crack across the head!

  • Lynn

    Why do people move into co-ops when they can’t follow rules? If she knew it was a rule before she moved in…why would she feel entitled to an exception. If you don’t want to abide by rules…live in a house!!!

    • Lewis

      nIt wasn’t a rule before she moved in…and the board was ridiculous is spending this kind of money…money it didn’t have…to have someone evicted when the rule was not legal as they failed to reach the 80% approval rating. Had they done their job correctly this never would have happened and the tenants would not have to pay for their mistakes.

  • puppypower

    Perhaps the condo board should have been upfront when they didn’t have the 80% approval from the owners – the board members should have to pay the fees – they are the ones who were stubborn and caused the problem in the first place. Madmatt – you obviously never had a pet – that’s sad.

  • Joe

    They should be upset with the board and not the owner. As Dante pointed out, the board is trying to enforce rules that weren’t supported to an extreme cost. It should be paid for by the board members since they were in the wrong. People aren’t unhappy about the dog, they’re unhappy about the bill. They’re just being lazy and cowardly if they get upset with the owner instead of the board.

    • puppypower


  • Madmatt

    I think Ms. Forman should have thought about the consequences of her stubborness. Its costing everyone else a bunch of money for a dog. Im sure the other condo owners are seething. I wouldnt have done it just for a dog. As for the condo board, i would sue them if they try to stick me with a bill for someone else i dont know.

    • Jojo

      I not seeing your logic. You obviously have never had a pet to write what you did. Frankly, the board took it to the level where all the money was spent on legal fees. How stupid was that. Firstly, the lawyer should be sued because he obviously was taking money for a case he knew he could not win. The rule was not written into the bylaws, so they have no legal leg to stand on . In fact every homeowner should sue the board.

  • DanTe

    Typical board members of a condo or coop: kings of the mole hill. No name, nobodies too useless to be out working. That’s usually who sits on those boards. Making “decisions” that inconvenience everybody.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Giving Tuesday
Charles Osgood Event

Listen Live