Judge Adrian Armstrong

Landlord sought to evict tenants in this holdover summary proceeding arguing they failed to cure the no-pet clause violation by continuing to harbor two cats without consent in the premises. Tenants argued the proceeding was brought in bad faith and landlord waived enforcement of the no-pet clause as the action was commenced more than three months after landlord became aware of the cats via employees visiting the apartment between 2009 and 2016 and “traditional accouterments of household pets” were visible. The court noted while tenant Johnson testified she did not hide the cats, she failed to offer evidence on the “critical open and notorious” element of the statutory waiver defense, making no showing the cats were in open view at any time, while landlord's employees testified they never observed the cats before the May 2016 inspection of the apartment, when they promptly reported same. Thus, it found no waiver of the no-pet clause by landlord and a judgment of possession was granted. Also, as tenants remained in possession of the premises, landlord was entitled to a money judgment of outstanding rents and use and occupancy, less a credit for tenants' displacement for three days after a fire in another unit.