Falk & Klebanoff, P. C., for petitioner.
William D. Friedman for Kim Stradford, respondent.
Scott Fairgrieve, J.
This case appears to be a case of first impression, created not only by the circumstances of the parties, but also by the unique jurisdictional configuration of the New York court system. The Court's research has not uncovered a case in which a petitioner sought to evict from a premises, owned solely by the petitioner and formerly occupied by all parties, an ex-domestic partner, who had minor children with the petitioner.
In this proceeding, Easton Blake (hereinafter petitioner) commenced a summary proceeding against his ex-domestic partner, Kim Stradford (hereinafter respondent), and a " John and Jane Doe." The " John and Jane Doe" referred to in the petition are the minor, out-of-wedlock, children of the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner seeks to evict the respondent
and their minor children from the premises, known as 485 Pinebrook Avenue, West Hempstead, New York 11552.
The petitioner's position is that the respondent, his ex-domestic partner, with whom he cohabited in the subject premises, is a " licensee," and the license has now been revoked. The petitioner claims that the Court has jurisdiction to issue a warrant of eviction to have the respondent and their minor children removed from possession of the subject premises.
The respondent raises three defenses to this proceeding. First, she claims as the ex-domestic partner of the petitioner that there are sufficient implied and actual equitable and legal issues to be resolved by the dissolution of this domestic partnership to deny this Court from having jurisdiction to evict her as a " licensee." Second, she claims that there is a derivative relationship with the petitioner (by residing in the family home with their minor children) which would deny this Court from having jurisdiction to evict her. Third, the Court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction in this proceeding in the interests of judicial efficiency, as it would be better to have the dissolution of the family litigated in a forum which can best protect the interests of the parties and particularly the children of this domestic partnership.
Based upon the credible evidence adduced at trial, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
In this proceeding, the parties do not dispute the dispositive facts. In January of 1989, the petitioner purchased a premises known as 485 Pinebrook Avenue, West Hempstead, New York. A certified copy of the deed to the premises was offered into evidence, although the respondent concedes that her name does not appear on the deed or mortgage. The monthly mortgage payment for the premises at issue is $1,350 per month.
In April of 1994, the parties had a child out of wedlock. In December of 1997, the respondent and the parties' minor child moved into the subject premises with the petitioner. At the time that the respondent moved into the premises in question, there was no written agreement between the parties with regard to the subject premises and the respondent was not married to the petitioner. However, the parties were involved in a relationship, as boyfriend and girlfriend, and had been involved for some time. In July of 1999, the parties' second child was born out of wedlock.
Sometime after the birth of the parties' second child, in early 2000, the relationship between the parties failed. Soon thereafter,
the respondent brought a Family Court proceeding for child support of the parties' two minor children. As a result of this proceeding, a Family Court order of support was issued. In May of 2000, the respondent commenced another Family Court proceeding. This proceeding was to obtain a protective order. On December 1, 2000, an order of protection was ordered by the Nassau County Family Court, in favor of the respondent and against the ...