Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

509 Realty Co., LLC v. Carolyn Wright

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Term, First Department


December 29, 2011

509 REALTY CO., LLC,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
CAROLYN WRIGHT,
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
-AND-
"JOHN DOE" AND "JANE DOE," RESPONDENTS.

Respondent Carolyn Wright appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2010, after a non-jury trial, which awarded possession to petitioner in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per curiam.

509 Realty Co., LLC v Wright

Decided on December 29, 2011

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ

Final judgment (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

Appellant failed to meet her "affirmative obligation" of establishing succession rights to the rent stabilized apartment as a nontraditional family member of the departed tenant (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2523.5[e]). While appellant claims to be tenant's cousin, that status does not qualify her as a protected "family member," as defined under rent stabilization (9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o][1]). The record compels the conclusion that appellant's relationship with tenant was not characterized by the "emotional and financial commitment and interdependence" required for nontraditional family succession (9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o][2]). No claim or showing was made that appellant and the departed tenant intermingled their finances, formalized legal obligations or jointly owned property (see GSL Enters. v Lopez, 239 AD2d 122 [1997]). In this regard, appellant readily acknowledged that she and tenant shared no joint bank accounts and are not legatees of each other's estates, and, further, that the two have "different outlooks ... [and] like different things" and are not "close any more."

Although the trial court did not set forth the specific facts it deemed essential to its decision, as required by CPLR 4213(b), upon our independent review of the complete record (see Matter of Allen v Black, 275 AD2d 207, 209 [2000]), we find, for the foregoing reasons, that the evidence supports the court's determination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: December 29, 2011

20111229

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.