Respondent Myers appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Laurie L. Lau, J.), entered September 7, 2004, after a nonjury trial, awarding possession to petitioner in a holdover summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment (Laurie L. Lau, J.), entered September 7, 2004, affirmed, without costs.

We agree that appellant failed to meet his "affirmative obligation" of establishing succession rights to the subject West 11th Street rent controlled apartment as a non-traditional family member of the deceased tenant (see 9 NYCRR 2204.6[d][2],[3]). While it appears that the two had a close, loving relationship, the exact nature of appellant's living arrangements remains unclear on this record, in view of appellant's own documentary evidence listing his address as 248 Elizabeth Street, Manhattan, and his admission in the context of a 1990 DHCR harassment proceeding that he had lived in the Elizabeth Street unit since 1967. Moreover, despite appellant's dependency upon the tenant financially, "there was no commingling of finances, no joint ownership of anything, not even an indication of sharing household or family expenses." (390 W. End Assoc. v Wildfoerster, 241 Ad2d 402, 403 [1997].)
"On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 Ad2d 544, 544-545 [1990]).

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them lacking in merit.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 27, 2006