RPDG, LLC v Kuravsky

Annotate this Case
[*1] RPDG, LLC v Kuravsky 2016 NY Slip Op 50791(U) Decided on May 12, 2016 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 12, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2014-2668 K C

RPDG, LLC, Appellant,

against

Alexander Kuravsky and Valeria Novak, Respondents, -and- "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Undertenants.

Appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kevin C. McClanahan, J.), entered March 10, 2015. The final judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated March 4, 2014, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the petition.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated March 4, 2014 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the final judgment entered March 10, 2015 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this holdover proceeding predicated, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, on a claim that tenant, Alexander Kuravsky, violated his lease by harboring a dog without landlord's consent, the Civil Court dismissed the petition after a nonjury trial, finding that landlord's failure to commence the proceeding within three months of learning of the dog's presence in the subject apartment constituted a waiver of landlord's right to enforce the no-pet provision of the lease (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2009.1; see also Seward Park Hous. Corp. v Cohen, 287 AD2d 157, 162-163 [2001]; Toledo Mut. Hous. Corp. v Schwartz, 33 Misc 3d 58 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). As the Civil Court's determination is supported by the record, the final judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: May 12, 2016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.