Opinion
570113/07.
Decided on June 16, 2008.
Petitioner appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2005, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.
McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, HEITLER, JJ.
Final judgment (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2005, reversed, with $30 costs, and final judgment awarded to petitioner. Issuance of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
Based upon the evidence adduced at trial and in the exercise of our authority to render the judgment warranted by the facts ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499), we conclude that respondent Pitt failed to meet his "affirmative obligation" of establishing succession rights to the subject rent controlled apartment as a non-traditional family member of the deceased tenant. While respondent and the deceased tenant may have been romantically involved at one time, there was no evidence that a relationship characterized by "emotional and financial commitment and interdependence" continued over the years ( see 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][3]; Matsia v Rodriguez, 2006 NY Slip Op 50546[U] [2006]). There was no documentary evidence that respondent and the deceased tenant intermingled finances, formalized legal obligations or jointly owned property. Nor was there any proof that respondent and the deceased tenant held themselves out to the community as a family unit, shared household expenses and activities, or celebrated holidays with other family members, and it is significant that others, not respondent, provided day-to-day care to tenant in the final year of his life (see GSL Enterprises, Inc. v Lopez, 239 AD2d 122).
Moreover, the trial record demonstrated that appellant's use of the apartment was minimal during the relevant one-year period prior to the death of the tenant of record ( see 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][1]). Petitioner's trial evidence showed that respondent's primary residence was in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, and that respondent did not have a substantial nexus to the subject apartment during that time frame.
This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.