Opinion
570105/21
10-14-2021
Jeannie Readick, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Jonas Green a/k/a Jonas Greenberg, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: EDMEAD, P.J., BRIGANTTI, HAGLER JJ.
PER CURIAM
Respondent appeals from an amended order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Marcia J. Sikowitz, J.), dated September 16, 2020, which granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment of possession in a holdover summary proceeding.
Amended order (Marcia J. Sikowitz, J.), dated September 16, 2020, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment of possession was properly granted. No issue of fact was raised by respondent as to whether he had any right to continued occupancy of the apartment he shared with petitioner following petitioner's termination of respondent's month-to-month tenancy.
Respondent's contention that he is a nontraditional family member of petitioner, who can only be removed in an action for ejectment, was properly rejected. Even were we to accept respondent's contention (disputed by petitioner) that he and petitioner resided together in the apartment as "domestic partners" in a non-traditional family-like relationship, this summary proceeding is properly maintainable. The RPAPL contains no language exempting individuals with some family relationship to a petitioner from eviction, whether under RPAPL 711 or RPAPL 713 (see Aloni v Oliver, 70 Misc.3d 137 [A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50069[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2021] ; Heckman v Heckman, 55 Misc.3d 86 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]). Furthermore, Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co. (74 N.Y.2d 201 [1989]), on which respondent bases his claim to be a non-traditional family member of petitioner, is inapplicable. Braschi applies to cases commenced by a landlord against a remaining family member of a rent regulated apartment who seeks succession rights, and not to cases between a lessee and another occupant of the apartment (see Aloni v Oliver, 70 Misc.3d 137 [A] ; Heckman v Heckman, 55 Misc.3d at 89).
We do not reach respondent's argument, raised for the first time in his appellate reply brief, that he was not a month-to-month tenant (see Mehmet v Add2Net, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 437, 438 [2009]).