## Facts

- George Young bought an apartment building in Newark, New Jersey, with existing residential tenants, including Victor Savinon, Flora Possumato, and Milagros Brosonski.
- Before Young purchased the building, defendants’ leases did not prohibit pets, and each tenant kept a dog with the prior landlord’s acceptance.
- After the purchase, Young offered renewal leases adding a “no pets” clause and sought to dispossess defendants unless they removed their dogs.
- Tenants described dangerous building and neighborhood conditions, including nighttime loitering, break-in attempts, a forced entry door, and a prior fatal stabbing in the building.
- Tenants testified their dogs provided security by barking at strangers and serving as a warning system.
- Expert testimony indicated the dogs were important to tenants’ emotional stability and health, and removal could cause significant distress and adverse health effects.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the circumstances, a successor landlord could reasonably enforce a newly added renewal-lease “no pets” clause against long-term tenants who had kept dogs with the prior landlord’s consent.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the judgments for possession entered for the landlord.
- The court held the “no pets” clause was unreasonable and unenforceable as applied to these tenants.
- Exercising original jurisdiction, the court dismissed the landlord’s possession complaints.

## Legal Principles

- Enforceability of restrictive lease provisions in landlord–tenant matters may depend on a fact-specific reasonableness analysis.
- A prior landlord’s long-standing acceptance of tenants’ conduct (here, keeping dogs) can create an implied agreement and tenant expectations that may carry forward beyond individual lease terms.
- A successor landlord who purchases with notice of existing conditions of tenancy may be constrained by the prior course of dealing and resulting reasonable expectations.
- Even facially valid lease restrictions may be denied enforcement where the hardship to tenants is severe and the landlord shows no comparable need or harm addressed by the restriction.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a renewal-lease “no pets” clause against long-term tenants whose dogs had been permitted for years and who relied on them for security and well-being, concluding that dispossession (or forced removal of the dogs) would be unreasonable on this record.


Young v. Savinon, 201 N.J. Super. 1, 492 A.2d 385 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)