Search for: "Hotel Cameron, Inc. v Purcell" Results 1 - 1 of 1
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Sep 2008, 12:25 pm
Tenant's claim that the dog must have defecated while he and his girlfriend were in another area of the apartment and in a hurry to make a plane, and that they were unaware of the mess until they returned from vacation three weeks later, is unavailing (see Hotel Cameron, Inc. v Purcell, 35 AD3d 153 [2006]), especially in view of the clause that the stipulation was to be applied with "zero tolerance" and that no violation was to be deemed… [read post]