Opinion
No. L & T 6894/11.
2012-02-23
2025 WALTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, Petitioner, v. Jose ARROYO, Respondent.
Brian Stark, Esq. Bronx, for Petitioner. Clerk of the Court, Scott Stamper, Esq., New York, for Respondent.
Brian Stark, Esq. Bronx, for Petitioner. Clerk of the Court, Scott Stamper, Esq., New York, for Respondent.
JAYA K. MADHAVAN, J.
Petitioner commenced this holdover proceeding alleging that respondent Jose Arroyo is a licensee of Edga Valle, the late rent stabilized tenant of record. Respondent, through counsel, claims that he and Ms. Valle had a non—traditional, mother—son relationship and therefore, he is entitled to succeed to Ms. Valle's tenancy. As respondent stipulated to petitioner's prima facie case, the court held a trial on respondent's affirmative defense of succession.
Trial
Respondent testified credibly in his own behalf. He was born in Puerto Rico but his father, Dimo Arroyo, left for New York shortly thereafter. In 1982, when respondent was approximately 14 years old, he went to New York to find his father. Respondent reunited with his father who then introduced him to Ms. Valle as “his lady.” He described his father and Ms. Valle as a “couple who [had] lived together for many years.” Respondent, his father and Ms. Valle would often go out together. “After awhile,” respondent began calling Ms. Valle, who was approximately 60 years old at the time, “mom.” He recalled that she would often take him to the store and otherwise spend time with him. However, in 2001, Dimo Arroyo left Ms. Valle and returned to Puerto Rico where he died three years later.
Despite his father's separation from Ms. Valle, respondent maintained a close relationship with her. Indeed, respondent testified that it was at this point that he “started getting tighter with her.” He visited Ms. Valle approximately “every two to three weeks” and confided his problems in Ms. Valle. She then instructed him on “what path to take.” Ms. Valle “helped [respondent] ... with everything,” including cooking for him and supporting him financially. Respondent and Ms. Valle would also go to events together such as fireworks shows. By 2004, respondent began staying over in the apartment with Ms. Valle for two to three days at a time.
In 2005, Ms. Valle's sister, Elda, her brother, Juan, and her granddaughter, Melissa Centeno, met with respondent. They were concerned that Ms. Valle was elderly and that they could not adequately care for her. Respondent replied that he would “stay with [Ms. Valle]” and care for her. He then left his apartment near Burnside and University Avenues in the Bronx and moved into the apartment.
During 2005, respondent and Ms. Valle shared many aspects of daily life in the apartment. Ms. Valle taught respondent recipes and they regularly cooked together as well as shared meals. She showed him how to clean the apartment and to do laundry. Respondent also decorated the apartment and made necessary repairs. Ms. Valle in turn would spend time sewing respondent's clothes while he listened to her tell him “stories about how things were back in her day.” Apart from their daily routine, respondent and Ms. Valle often entertained each others friends in the apartment as well as celebrated holidays and their birthdays together. They also surprised each other with gifts. And although Ms. Valle's granddaughter, Melissa Centeno, managed her bank account, respondent contributed at least $75–$100 per month toward household expenses. He also “helped [Ms. Valle] with the electric, rent and cable [bills]” as well as “bought things for her.”
In 2006, Ms. Valle was diagnosed with liver disease. Respondent testified that by 2010, Ms. Valle's legs had become swollen and she began losing control of her bladder, leaving him to bathe her, dress her and perform all household tasks. He further testified that Ms. Valle became confused. Consequently, respondent refused to leave Ms. Valle alone in the apartment as he feared that she would hurt herself in his absence.
By 2010, Ms. Valle's condition had worsened. Respondent recalled that he had taken Ms. Valle to the hospital three times and that by the end of 2010, she could barely walk. On or about February 5, 2010, Ms. Valle was admitted to St. Barnabas Hospital. Respondent visited her there for two to three hours every day. However, Ms. Valle soon fell into a coma and, on February 28, 2010, she died, leaving respondent alone in the apartment. Respondent attended Ms. Valle's funeral, but candidly testified that he “could not handle going to the cemetery” and that he “loved her a lot.”
Gladys Galindo then testified credibly for respondent. Ms. Galindo knew respondent's family from Puerto Rico but had lost touch with respondent. In 2006 however, Ms. Galindo met respondent at a party and they then exchanged phone numbers. Soon thereafter, respondent introduced Ms. Galindo to Ms. Valle as Ms. Galindo needed someone to sew school uniforms for her children. Ms. Galindo further testified that she had visited respondent and Ms. Valle for Thanksgiving in 2006 when she saw respondent cooking. She also visited respondent and Ms. Valle for Christmas in 2006 as well as on three other occasions in 2007. Ms. Galindo testified that she “saw [respondent] and Ms. Valle living together” and also observed him “washing dishes and preparing food.”
Last, Ms. Valle's granddaughter, Melissa Centeno, also testified credibly for respondent. Ms. Centeno recalled visiting her grandmother as a child and observing her relationship with respondent's father. After Ms. Valle's relationship with Dimo Arroyo ended in 2001, Ms. Centeno continued visiting her grandmother approximately “every weekend or every other weekend.” She tearfully recalled that respondent “treated [Ms. Valle] like a mother” and that he “loved her.” She remembered that respondent and Ms. Valle celebrated their birthdays as well as all of the holidays together. Ms. Centeno further testified that respondent “did whatever [Ms. Valle] needed,” including taking her to medical appointments and to the grocery store. Indeed, Ms. Centeno first learned of Ms. Valle's illness from respondent. And although Ms. Centeno managed Ms. Valle's health insurance because she “understood everything about the insurance,” it was respondent who took Ms. Valle to the hospital when she became ill. Ms. Centeno testified that she “consider[ed respondent] her uncle” and was “grateful to him for being there.”
Discussion
Succession to a rent stabilized apartment is largely governed by Public Housing Law § 14[4] and NYC Rent Stabilization and Code § 2523.5[b][1]; see also9 NYCRR 2520.6[o] ). As amended, those provisions essentially codified the Court of Appeals' landmark holding in Braschi v. Stahl Associates, 74 N.Y.2d 201 [1989]. In Braschi, the Court interpreted the meaning of the term family as used in the rent control regulations. Those provisions protected from eviction, “either the surviving spouse of the deceased tenant or some other member of the deceased tenant's family who has been living with the tenant” (id., 74 N.Y.2d at 206,emphasis in original ). The Court held that
the term family, as used in 9 NYCRR 2204.6[d], should not be rigidly restricted to those people who have formalized their relationship.... The intended protection against sudden eviction should not rest on fictitious legal distinctions or genetic history, but instead should find its foundation in the reality of family life (id., 74 N.Y.2d at 211).
Protection from eviction should therefore
... be based upon an objective examination of the relationship of the parties ... including the exclusivity and longevity of the relationship, the level of emotional and financial commitment, the manner in which the parties have conducted their everyday lives and held themselves out to society, and the reliance placed upon one another for daily family services [citations omitted]. These factors are most helpful, although it should be emphasized that the presence or absence of one or more of them is not dispositive since it is the totality of the relationship as evidenced by the dedication, caring and self—sacrifice of the parties which should, in the final analysis, control (id., 74 N.Y.2d at 212–213).
Current rent stabilization regulations reflect the broad definition of “family” enunciated by the Braschi Court (9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o] ). The term “family member” now includes both traditional as well as non—traditional family relationships; they range from varying degrees of relatives of the tenant of record to “any other person residing with the tenant ... in the housing accommodation as a primary residence, who can prove emotional and financial commitment and interdependence between such person and the tenant ...” ( id.). However, “no single factor shall be solely determinative” in verifying a non—traditional family relationship ( id.). The regulations now shield from eviction, members of a rent stabilized tenant's “family,” as broadly redefined, who have primarily resided with the tenant in the apartment for either two years immediately prior to the tenant permanently vacating the apartment, or for one year where the family member is disabled (9 NYCRR § 2523.5[b][1] ).
Respondent's evidence established that he and Ms. Valle were a family within the meaning of the Rent Stabilization Code. Initially, the court credits respondent's testimony that he had been occupying the apartment with Ms. Valle for at least two years prior to her death on February 28, 2010 . That testimony was corroborated by Ms. Galindo and Ms. Centeno as well as by bank records spanning the period of September 2006 through February 2010 which were all addressed to respondent at the apartment (Resp.Exh.A). Petitioner failed to discredit this proof or offer any evidence that placed respondent elsewhere.
Respondent alleged that he was disabled (Ans., ¶ 19) such that the one—year co—occupancy requirement should apply (RSC § 2523.5[b] [1] ). Respondent's only proof of this fact was indirectly contained in his bank records (Exh. A) which reflected ongoing deposits of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Nevertheless, respondent's proof amply established that he met the higher co—occupancy requirement of two years.
The highly credible, unrebutted testimony at trial further proved that respondent and Ms. Valle had a non—traditional, mother—son relationship. Respondent testified that Ms. Valle taught him to cook and that they prepared and shared their meals together. Respondent and Ms. Valle also performed household tasks and ran errands together. They also entertained together, spent holidays together and celebrated each other's birthdays. Respondent candidly testified that he would often share his problems with Ms. Valle and turn to her for guidance. He also spent significant amounts of time with Ms. Valle and listened to her reminisce about the past. When Ms. Valle became ill, respondent bathed her, dressed her and performed all household tasks. He spent nearly all of his time caring for Ms. Valle. He even refused to leave the apartment when Ms. Valle was sleeping as he feared leaving her alone. And toward the end of Ms. Valle's life, it was respondent who repeatedly took her to the hospital and visited her daily until she died. As respondent's own granddaughter, Ms. Centeno, aptly testified, respondent “treated [Ms. Valle] like a mother. He loved her ... [and] did whatever she needed.”
In weighing this unrebutted evidence, the court must look to indicia “relevant to a parent/child relationship, as opposed to a relationship between adults” ( 129th St. HDFC v. Doe, NYLJ, March 2, 1992, at 31, col. 2 [Civ Ct N.Y. Co]; see also In re: Davidson, 28 Misc.3d 536, 540 [Sup Ct Kings Co 2010], [niece—aunt relationship reviewed as parent—child relationship for non—traditional family member analysis] ). Respondent's relationship with Ms. Valle began when he was a teenager and she would take him out and otherwise spend time with him. That relationship continued upon respondent moving into the apartment in 2005. Respondent confided in Ms. Valle and sought her guidance as a son would from his mother. They spent time together as before, both inside and outside of the Apartment, celebrating holidays and birthdays together while also sharing household responsibilities. When Ms. Valle became ill, respondent cared for her as any dutiful son would, refusing to leave her even while she was asleep.Courts have conferred succession rights upon occupants under similar facts. In RHM Estates v. Hampshire, 18 AD3d 326, 326–327 [1st Dept 2005], the Court found a non—traditional family relationship where, as here, the tenant and an unrelated younger man celebrated holidays and birthdays together, traveled together, shared meals, and the “son” spent substantial time caring for the tenant as she struggled with a long—term illness from which she eventually died ( see also AFE Realty Corp. v. Diamond, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 50783[U], * 1 [App Term 2d & 11th Jud Dists], [emotionally committed mother-son relationship found where expenses were shared and occupant cared for his “mother” during illness]; In re: Davidson, 28 Misc.3d at 542 [disabled niece who “engaged in family—like activities” with aunt and who was “emotionally dependent” upon her was entitled to succeed to aunt's tenancy as aunt was her “de facto mother”]; Fort Washington Holdings, LLC v. Abbott, 28 Misc.3d 364 [Civ Ct N.Y. Co 2010], [aunt and nephew had a non—traditional family relationship where they shopped together, contributed to shared living expenses, went to medical appointments together and took care of their apartment together]; Greenburger v.. DeChristofano, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 51811 [U], * 1, [App Term 1st Dept], [developmentally disabled respondent's relationship with now deceased tenant “involved a devoted cohabitation complete with sharing expenses and obligations” and was that of a non-traditional family member as defined in the governing rent control regulations] ).
Petitioner argues that, notwithstanding the foregoing, there is insufficient proof of financial interdependence between respondent and Ms. Valle. Petitioner then incorrectly claims that “financial commitment and interdependence has [ sic ] often been elevated to the single defining factor of the Braschi relationship” (Pet. Memorandum of Law, p. 3). Financial interdependence must be measured with due regard for the relative economic status of the parties ( see Roberts Ave Assocs. v. Sullivan, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op 51091[U], *1 [App Term 1st Dept], [“The absence of documentary evidence of intermingling of finances does not undermine respondent's succession claim where the parties had limited assets, and where other criteria for succession are present (citations omitted)”]; see also 176 East 3rd St., LLC v. Wright, NYLJ, January 19, 2001, at 26, col. 5 [App Term 1st Dept], citing Llorente v. Stackiewicz, NYLJ, February 22, 1995, at 31, col. 4 [App Term 1st Dept], [absence of joint accounts or financial transactions is not dispositive where couple had modest income] ).
Respondent established sufficient proof that he and Ms. Valle had a degree of financial interdependence appropriate to the nature of their relationship and their limited resources. The court notes that both respondent and Ms. Valle were indigent and subsisted on government benefits. Respondent's bank records confirmed that his income consisted solely of SSI checks, averaging approximately $511 per month between 2006 and the time of Ms. Valle's death (Resp.Exh.A). From this meager sum, respondent credibly testified that he contributed at least $75–$100 per month toward shared household expenses and helped with other bills. The court also credits his testimony that he often “bought things for [Ms. Valle].” This level of financial interdependence was consistent with respondent and Ms. Valle's limited means and simple lifestyle. Given respondent and Ms. Valle's scant income, it would be unreasonable to expect respondent to have documentary proof of shared assets typical of those of greater economic means. However, even if respondent and Ms. Valle had significant resources, it would still be unrealistic to expect a mother and her adult son to have significant shared assets or records evidencing financial interdependence. Ironically, because of their indigency, respondent and Ms. Valle actually shared a greater degree of financial interdependence than would most mothers and their adult sons. In any event, the absence of documentary proof of the intermingling of finances “does not negate the conclusion that [Ms. Valle] and respondent had a family—like relationship” which was otherwise established by testimonial and documentary evidence as here (RHM Estates, 18 AD3d at 327;see also Arnie Realty Corp. v. Torres, 294 A.D.2d 193, 193–194 [1st Dept 2002], [same] ). Notably, petitioner failed to call any witnesses or offer any evidence to rebut respondent's credible proof of his relationship with Ms. Valle (Morton St. Assoc., LLC v. Volpe, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 50483 [U], * 1 [App Term 1st Dept], [succession established through credible, unrebutted testimonial proof] ).
Conclusion
The totality of the evidence presented by respondent established that he and Ms. Valle had a loving, emotionally committed and financially interdependent relationship and were thus, a family in every respect. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to succeed to Ms. Valle's tenancy. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent dismissing the petition with prejudice. Respondent shall retrieve his Exhibit from the Part T Clerk in Room 360 forthwith. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.