Young v. Savinon

Victor Savinon, Flora Possumato, and Milagros Brosonski (defendants) were all tenants of an apartment building acquired by George Young (plaintiff). The previous landowner had allowed the tenants to live in the building with their dogs. When Young acquired the building, he established a no-pets provision in the tenants’ leases. Young informed the tenants that to renew their leases, they would need to remove their dogs. After the dogs were not removed, Young filed an action for possession against the tenants. The tenants argued that the no-pets provision violated New Jersey’s Anti-Eviction Act because it was unreasonable. At the trial, testimony was presented that the tenants had owned their dogs for a long time and had received minimal complaints from other residents in the building concerning the dogs. An expert in psychology testified that the tenants would suffer health problems if they were forced to get rid of their pets, including depression, anxiety, hypertension, and cardiovascular concerns. The tenants testified that the apartment building was in a high crime-rate area and that they would feel safer with their dogs. Young testified that he was aware that the previous landlord had allowed the tenants to maintain dogs. The trial judge determined that it was bound by a previous decision in which the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division stated that a no-pets provision in a lease agreement was reasonable. The trial judge returned a verdict for Young. The tenants appealed.