The New York Times earlier this year addressed the question — “Do ‘no dog’ policies affect apartment values?”

One realtor said that because dog owners have fewer apartments to choose from, they may pay a premium for a building that will let them in. She estimated that pet-friendly apartments may be worth an additional 5-10% on the open market.

An analysis quoted in the same article by Miller Samuel seemed to disagree with at least part of that assessment, showing that 78% of coops and condos sold in the fourth quarter of 2014 allowed pets. So is there a premium the other way, for buyers who specifically don’t want to live around animals? No, no-pet sales consistently underperform the market average.

Much like Hillman, Seward tries to have it both ways: officially prohibiting dogs and other pets while issuing regulations for those cooperators who are breaking the rules.

Seward’s policy starts out word-for-word the same as East River’s and Hillman’s — “the no-animal provision in this lease shall be deemed a substantial obligation of the Lessee’s tenancy” — but then adds some provisions:

• Dogs must be registered annually, including certification of inoculations.
• Dogs must be kept on a leash no longer than five feet.
• Any waste must be disposed of properly.

Seward’s rules are less specific than Hillman’s recently adopted regulations (for example, Seward does not require a DNA sample to be submitted with registration as a way of identifying dog poop).

Imagine you have rented an apartment in the east village for 10 years in the 1980s, difficult times for the neighborhood. You have a dog and a cat, though your lease prohibits both. You have a professional but not friendly relationship with your landlord, who visits the building at least once a month.

As the area starts to clean up and housing prices start to go up, you notice your landlord around more often. He hires a crew to re-tile the entryway, repaint the front door, and fix the cracked concrete stoop. Then he sends you an eviction notice, with the cause being that you are harboring pets that are prohibited by your lease.

Really, he’s just trying to get rid of you so he can rent your apartment for more money. Lucky for you, there’s a law that says he can’t.

In 1983, New York City passed a law to protect tenants from exactly this scenario. The law states that any tenant who lives openly with a pet for 90 days, regardless of what’s in the lease, can not be evicted for that reason. If the landlord knows you have a dog and chooses to do nothing about it, he can’t suddenly turn around and kick you out.

That same law applies to our coop, and is a major reason why, even though we have a strict no-pet policy in our proprietary lease and house rules, there are still so many dogs (and cats, and fish) living at East River. Management needs to take action within 90 days of a tenant bringing home a pet or else lose the authority to do anything about it.

In fact, one of the important cases strengthening New York’s pet law was one that involved Seward Park. In 2002, a dog-owner facing eviction challenged management and won, with the appellate court saying that if porters, security guards, and other coop employees are aware of a pet’s presence, the managing agent does not need to personally be notified within 90 days.

At the time, Seward Park’s no-pet policy was exactly the same as ours is now.

Hillman has had the exact same no-dog policy as East River. But starting in 2014, Hillman issued revised rules that, while not officially allowing dogs to live in the coop, seek to regulate the dogs that do live there. Namely:

• Dogs in Hillman are required to be registered annually for $100 with a DNA sample that will allow feces to be identified if left on Hillman property.
• Each apartment may have no more than one dog.
• No dog may weigh more than 35 pounds.
• Disruptive dogs may be denied registration.

You can read the full policy here.

Why create this seeming contradiction? A blanket no-pet policy is superseded by New York City law that prohibits landlords from evicting tenants who have lived openly with a pet for 90 days. That means that if a cooperator is not served with a notice within 90 days of bringing in a pet, management has no recourse at all. This new policy is meant to give the coop some additional control over which pets may be allowed.

In preparation for our open meeting on June 1, let’s review our own official policy.

From the proprietary lease:

Dogs and Other Animals. No dogs or other animals or pets shall be kept or harbored in the Apartment, unless the Lessor’s prior written consent shall have been obtained in each instance. Violation by the Lessee of this provision shall constitute a breach of a substantial obligation of tenancy and of this lease.

The Lessee expressly agrees that the Lessor shall not be deemed to have waived the provisions of this Article by reason of having had notice or knowledge of a violation of such provisions unless (1) the Lessee has personally delivered written notice that the Lessee is harboring a pet to the Lessor’s management office and (2) the Manager of the Lessor has signed and dated a copy of that written notice to signify that he or she has received it. The Lessee further agrees that nothing in this Article shall be construed as a waiver of any of the Lessor’s rights hereunder or applicable law.

And, from the house rules:

27. Dogs and Other Animals. The Lessee agrees to comply with the provisions hereof prohibiting the harboring of dogs or other animals or pets. The Lessee understands that the harboring of such animals creates a substantial inconvenience for fellow lessees and for the Lessor’s staff. In particular, the Lessee recognizes that animals’ wastes foul the Development, that barking dogs can disturb other lessees and that large animals can frighten the many children and elderly residents of the Development. The Lessee hereby further agrees that the no-animal provision in this lease shall be deemed a substantial obligation of the Lessee’s tenancy.

After the New York Post reported last month that the U.S. Attorney and East River had reached an $85,000 settlement on the discrimination suit against the coop, cooperator Tommy Loeb wrote to board president Gary Altman to request a full accounting of this lawsuit and other lawsuits filed by the coop against pet owners.

After our annual meeting in December, Mr. Altman admitted that the coop’s legal fees related to dog litigation was $575,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014.

The line item for “legal & audit” expenses in the coop’s annual report has increased dramatically in the past three years as pet owners have been pursued — an increase of $1.2 million over the 2009-2011 baseline. The board of directors has reported that $195,000 has been recouped from our insurance provider, but the coop’s insurance saw a spike last year of $292,000, possibly in response to increased litigation.

Mr. Altman reported to Mr. Loeb this week that the settlement had not yet been finalized, and so a full accounting could not yet be delivered.