Opinion
January 28, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of respondent is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176). Furthermore, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).
The law is clear that the no-pet rule of respondent is reasonable and enforceable (see Trump Vil. Section 3 v. Moore, 84 A.D.2d 812; Megalopolis Prop. Assoc. v. Buvron, 125 Misc.2d 32; Riverbay Corp. v. Klinghoffer, 34 A.D.2d 630; Matter of Didyk v Golar, NYLJ, Jan. 18, 1972, p 17, col 7, affd 40 A.D.2d 639, mot for lv to app den 31 N.Y.2d 645, app dsmd 31 N.Y.2d 963). Titone, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and O'Connor, JJ., concur.