From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Infinity Corp. v. Danko

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.
Mar 9, 2015
9 N.Y.S.3d 593 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)

Opinion

No. 570642/13.

03-09-2015

INFINITY CORP., Petitioner–Landlord–Appellant, v. Evelyn DANKO, as the Executrix of the Estate of Bert Herbert, Respondent–Tenant, Aliston Philip, Respondent–Respondent,–and–“John Doe” and/or “Jane Doe”, Respondents.


Opinion

Final judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2013, affirmed, with $25 costs.

The duly credited trial evidence supports Civil Court's determination that respondent is entitled to succeed to the rent-stabilized tenancy of the deceased tenant as a nontraditional family member (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6[o][2] ). In this regard, the record shows that respondent and tenant enjoyed a family-type relationship dating back to 1996 and lived together in the subject apartment for more than two years prior to the tenant's death. The two engaged in social and recreational activities together, spent weekends together in Fire Island, and during the final months of his life, tenant was entirely dependent on respondent's care. The tenant financially supported the household while respondent performed household duties. They also shared a joint bank account and respondent was a beneficiary of a substantial portion of tenant's estate (see Arnie Realty Corp. v.. Torres, 294 A.D.2d 193 [2002] ).

Viewing the totality of the relationship between respondent and tenant, we find that the evidence adduced at trial established that the requisite emotional and financial commitment and interdependence existed entitling respondent to succession (see WSC Riverside Drive Owners LLC v. Williams, ––– AD3d ––––, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op 01158 [1st Dept 2015] ; RHM Estates v. Hampshire, 18 AD3d 326 [2005] ). We note the finding of the trial court that “[t]his was a relationship that went beyond that of roommates or a caregiver, [tenant] and respondent were each other's family and shared their lives for a period of approximately fifteen years.” Contrary to petitioner claim, respondent's apparent involvement in the sex industry as a “male escort” was clearly not fatal to respondent's otherwise meritorious succession claim. As the trial court recognized, such illicit employment activity was not shown, on this record, to have any material relevance to “the nature of the relationship between respondent and [tenant].”

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur


Summaries of

Infinity Corp. v. Danko

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.
Mar 9, 2015
9 N.Y.S.3d 593 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)
Case details for

Infinity Corp. v. Danko

Case Details

Full title:INFINITY CORP., Petitioner–Landlord–Appellant, v. Evelyn DANKO, as the…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 9, 2015

Citations

9 N.Y.S.3d 593 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)