Opinion
570654/05.
Decided January 12, 2006.
Respondent Ruffin appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), dated April 25, 2005, which granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment awarding it possession in a holdover summary proceeding.
Order (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), dated April 25, 2005, affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., DAVIS, GANGEL-JACOB, JJ
Respondent Ruffin failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to whether he had a right of succession to the subject apartment as a nontraditional family member. Respondent's mere statements that "I was a family member" who shared "clothes, household bills, vacations and holidays" with the tenant of record were insufficient to raise a material issue of fact as to the existence of the requisite "emotional and financial commitment and interdependence" ( 9 NYCRR 2204.6[d][3]). Conspicuously absent was any evidence tending to show that respondent and the tenant of record intermingled finances, formalized legal obligations or jointly owned property ( GSL Enterprises, Inc. v. Lopez, 239 AD2d 122; Seminole Realty Co. v. Greenbaum, 209 AD2d 345, appeal dismissed 85 NY2d 922). Respondent's submissions of a Smith Barney joint account and a Certificate of Domestic Partnership were properly deemed by the motion court to be of "no probative value" since both post-dated the commencement of the instant proceeding. Nor was there any proof that respondent and the tenant of record held themselves out to the community as a family unit or jointly celebrated holidays with other family members ( Riverview Development Holding Corp., v. Doe, 8 Misc 3d 132 (A) [2005]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.