between the point in time when the landlord became aware of the dog and its viciousness and the attack. See, e.g., Fernandez v. Marks, 3 Haw.App. 127, 642 P.2d 542, 544 (1982)(noting that 28-day notice requirement would have prevented landlord from evicting the dogs’ owner prior to the dog-biting incidents in question); Feister v. Bosack, 198 Mich.App. 19, 497 N.W.2d 522, 525-26 (1993)(noting that, even if the ability to evict was equivalent to control, there was insufficient time for the landlord to have evicted because the event giving rise to notice occurred a "scant two days” before the plaintiff was injured and thus the landlord would have been unable to evict under Michigan law which requires a minimum of 30 days notice); Roy v. Neibauer, 191 Mont. 224, 623 P.2d 555, 556 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Meyers v. Haskins, 140 A.D.2d 923, 528
holding that prejudgment interest should accrue 30 days after fee petition was filed holding that landlord was not liable where dog injured child nine days after landlordtenant relationship was established and where the lease called for 30 days notice before it could be terminated holding that tenant had received more than 30 days to correct violations of the lease when the notice was served on february 27 and the complaint was filed on april 4 holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay