Opinion
May 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, First Department (Parness, J.P., McCooe, and Freedman, JJ.).
A fair interpretation of the evidence supports Appellate Term's finding that respondent failed to meet his "affirmative obligation" to prove "emotional and financial commitment, and interdependence between [himself and the tenant" such as would entitle him to succeed to the subject rent-controlled apartment as a nontraditional family member of the tenant ( 9 NYCRR 2204.6[d][2], [3]). All that was offered was respondent's testimony that he and the deceased tenant shared expenses, held some credit cards jointly, and vacationed together on some five occasions over their 11-year relationship, and that he helped to care for the tenant in his illness. As Appellate Term pointed out, there was no testimony from friends, neighbors, or family members corroborating a family-type, as opposed to close-friend-and-roommate, relationship ( see, Seminole Realty Co. v. Greenbaum, 209 A.D.2d 345); no documentation corroborating the intermingling of finances; no proof that the two had ever held themselves out as a family unit, executed documents formalizing legal obligations, or jointly celebrated holidays with other family members except on one occasion; and it was significant that the tenant executed a power of attorney in favor of his sister, and amended his will to include his desire that his sister "inherit" the apartment.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.