BACKGROUND

This summary holdover proceeding was commenced by WEST BRIDGE ASSOCIATES LP (Petitioner) against CURTIS STEVENS (Respondent)^[FN1] seeking to recover possession of 508 West 151 Street, Apt. 2B, New York, NY 10031 (Subject Premises) based on the allegation that Respondent is the licensee of Bernice Aikens (Tenant), the last rent stabilized tenant of record, and that after Tenant's death, Respondent is no longer entitled to remain in possession of the Subject Premises. The primary issue for the court to determine is Respondent's succession claim.

Respondent appeared by counsel on May 29, 2014, and filed an answer July 10, 2014, asserting succession, procedural defenses and a claim for attorneys' fees. Respondent asserted that he and Tenant lived together for over 30 years as spouses. Initially, they lived in apartment 10 in the Subject Building, and then they moved into the Subject Premises in or about 2005.

On May 13, 2015, the proceeding was assigned to Part R and the trial commenced. The trial continued and concluded on May 15, 2015, and at the conclusion of the trial, the court reserved decision.

The parties stipulated to Petitioner's prima facie case and agreed the sole issue for the court to determine is Respondent's succession claim.

Petitioner is the owner of the Subject Building pursuant to a deed dated August 10, 2000 (Ex 1). The Subject Premises is a two bedroom apartment. Pursuant to the applicable regulatory agreement with between Petitioner and HPD, the minimum number of occupants for a two bedroom apartment is two.^[FN2]

Tenant was the tenant of record of the Subject Premises pursuant to a lease dated September 30, 1999 (Ex 4a). The lease was most recently renewed on October 1, 2011, for a two year period through and including September 30, 2013, at a monthly rent of $300.06 (Ex 5). Tenant died on January 18, 2014 (Ex L). The death certificate lists Respondent as her Domestic Partner and lists both of their addresses as the Subject Premises. Tenant was cremated. Tenant's [*2]ashes are in Respondent's possession in the Subject Premises.

Respondent is 74 years old. Respondent credibly testified that he lived with Tenant in the Subject Premises, from the inception of her tenancy and that prior to living in the Subject Premises, he lived with Tenant in apartment 10 in the same building.

Respondent submitted documents to support his testimony that the Subject Premises is his primary residence and was for the two years prior to Tenant's death. The documents submitted include: records of prescriptions filled by Respondent at a local pharmacy between 1999 and 2014 (Ex B); documents from Apple Bank showing Respondent was the custodian for Tenant's bank account opened in May 1996 (Ex C); documents from Social Security for the years 2004 through 2013 (Ex D); a document from Harlem Hospital pertaining to medical treatment administered in January 1998 and May 2013 (Ex A); and documents from Mount Sinai for medical treatment from 2000 through 2013 (Ex F).

Additionally, Petitioner submitted annual re-certification forms which do not list any household member besides Tenant. However, the initial forms submitted by Tenant in 1999 for the Subject Premises, include in the statement of assets a joint bank account at Chase for Tenant and Respondent which was opened March 6, 1990 (Ex 6A).

The first witness called by Respondent was Nathaniel Coleman (Coleman). Coleman is Respondent's son. Coleman testified that Respondent and Tenant lived like husband and wife since approximately 1988. Coleman testified Respondent and Tenant spent a lot of time together with family and took several trips together.

Coleman first met Tenant in the summer of 1992, when he went to visit Respondent at the subject building. At this time, Respondent and Tenant and Respondent's father, Raleigh, lived together in apartment 10 in the subject building. Coleman visited Respondent and Tenant two to three times per week in apartment 10, from the summer of 1992 forward. There was a four month period where Coleman lived with Tenant and Respondent in apartment 10.

The Subject Building is part of the Neighborhood Entrepreneurs Program (NEP)^[FN3] and was renovated with government funding. As part of the program, Respondent and Tenant were relocated from apartment 10 in the subject building to the Subject Premises. Respondent's father had died prior to the move. Coleman continued to visit Tenant and Respondent two to three times per week, in the Subject Premises, after the move. Coleman described Tenant as a second mother to him. Coleman called Tenant " Ma B." Coleman spent many family gatherings with Respondent and Tenant at the Subject Premises, typically Tenant would cook and the family would play cards.

The last family occasion Coleman shared at the Subject Premises prior to Tenant's death was Christmas 2013. Coleman was there, Tenant's foster children Burt and Elena were there, along with Yvette and her daughter. Yvette and Tenant had a close relationship, Tenant helped raise Yvette. Tenant never had children of her own. Respondent also acted as a father figure to Elena and Burt.

Coleman also spent Thanksgiving 2013 at the Subject Premises with Tenant and [*3]Respondent. The Court found Coleman to be a credible witness. In 2013, Coleman brought his fiancee to meet Respondent and Tenant at the Subject Premises.

The last trip Tenant and Respondent took together was in 2011, when they went to South Carolina to visit Tenant's family. Tenant's sister lives in South Carolina.

Respondent has another son named Gerald Stevens. Respondent was married to Gerald's mother, Gertrude, and they never divorced. Gerald and Gertrude live in Brooklyn, NY.

The next witness to testify for Respondent was Reuben Wesley (Wesley). Wesley's family and Tenant's family have known each other for decades and lived on the same block from 1979. Tenant and Wesley's mother were friends. Wesley is married to Helena, one of Tenant's foster children. Wesley met Respondent in 2007, when he started dating Helena, and has called Respondent "Pop" since then, because he considered Respondent to be Tenant's spouse. Wesley and Respondent have too close a relationship for Wesley to call Respondent by his first name.

Between 2007 and 2009, Wesley visited the Subject Premises well over fifty times. During these visits Wesley, Respondent and Tenant would have dinner, watch TV and play cards. Respondent and Tenant lived together, and towards the end of her life, Tenant had a home attendant who came to the Subject Premises, during day time hours.

Between 2009 and 2011, Wesley and his wife visited the Subject Premises at least two to three times per week. Tenant was always at the Subject Premises when they visited , as she had limited mobility. In 2011 Wesley and his wife moved to Brooklyn and their visits to the Subject Premises became less frequent. Wesley described Respondent and Tenant as a happy couple, he never heard them argue, and described them as a family.

The next witness to testify for Respondent was Novella Loper (Novella). Novella has known Respondent all her life and considers him to be family, because he is the father of her half brother. Novella knew Tenant for over three decades. In the two years prior to Tenant's death, Novella visited Respondent and Tenant at the Subject Premises. Often during these visits, which generally took place on weekends, other family members were present. During these visits Novella would join the family for meals and card games. Novella testified that Respondent and Tenant had a very good relationship testifying that they had a "Crazy out of this world relationship, they was real tight, it was like they was married." Novella described Respondent and Tenant as inseparable like two peas in a pod. Novella knew Respondent and Tenant to be family for thirty years.

Respondent testified next. Respondent's testimony was vague and unreliable as to dates. Respondent could not recall how long he has lived in the Subject Premises. Respondent testified that he moved into the Subject Premises with Tenant and that before that he and Tenant lived together in apartment 10 in the Subject Building.

Respondent testified that he and Tenant traveled on five occasions to South Carolina to visit Tenant's family. Tenant's siblings lived there and they also went to South Carolina for the funeral of Tenant's mother. Respondent is 74 years old. Respondent could not recall how many years he and Tenant were together, but knew it was over 20 years. Respondent considered Tenant to be his wife. Respondent and Tenant both contributed towards bills for the Subject Premises and related expenses.

Respondent could not recall the names of Tenant's family members. Respondent could not recall when Tenant first had a home attendant or the names of any of the home attendants. Respondent takes lots of medication, but could not say what the medication is for .

Petitioner called Maria Figueroa as a rebuttal witness. Figueroa is a managing agent for Petitioner and testified that she knew Tenant, but first met Respondent a few months before the trial. Figueroa testified as to how rent payments were submitted for the Subject Premises up until Tenant's death. Alan Heussinger also testified in rebuttal regarding his familiarity with Tenant and Respondent.

Under the Rent Stabilization Code a nontraditional family member who has resided with the tenant of record in the Subject Premises for at least two years prior to the Tenant's death is entitled to succession [RSC §2523.5(b)(1)].

§2520.6(o) defines a nontraditional family member to include certain blood relatives and:

Any other person residing with the tenant or permanent tenant in the housing accommodation as a primary residence , who can prove emotional and financial commitment, and interdependence between such person and the tenant or permanent tenant. Although no single factor shall be solely determinative, evidence which is to be considered in determining whether such emotional and financial commitment and interdependence existed may include ....

(i) longevity of the relationship;

(ii) sharing of or relying upon each other for payment of household or family expenses, and/or other common necessities of life;

(iii) intermingling of finances as evidenced by ... joint ownership of bank accounts ...;

(iv) engaging in family-type activities by jointly attending family functions, holidays and celebrations, social and recreational activities, etc. ;

(v) formalizing of legal obligations, intentions and responsibilities to each other .... ;

(vi) holding themselves out as family members to other family members, friends ... through their words or actions;

(vii) regularly performing family functions ... ;

(viii) engaging in any other pattern of behavior, agreement, or other action which evidences the intention of creating a long-term , emotionally committed relationship.

It was undisputed at trial that Tenant primarily resided at the Subject Premises for the two years prior to her death. The Court finds that Respondent also established by a preponderance of credible evidence that he resided at the Subject Premises as his primary residence for at least the two years prior to Tenant's death, and the credible evidence shows a much longer period then that. This was established by the credible testimony of Respondent's witnesses as well as the documents submitted into evidence. This evidence was not contradicted by Petitioner, who failed to connect Respondent to any other property for living purposes.

The court also finds that Respondent established that he and Tenant were like spouses to each other, even though they never married, and Respondent remained legally married to another. Respondent and Tenant had a long term relationship spanning decades. The length of the relationship alone, in this case, attests to the intimate family like nature of the relationship.

They shared their life expenses. They were of very modest financial means but had shared bank account as early as 1990 (Ex 6) and Respondent acted as trustee for Tenant's bank account opened in 1996 (Ex C). They represented themselves as spouses to family and friends as established by the credible testimony of Respondent's witnesses and as evidenced in such public documents as Tenant's death certificate (Ex L). They celebrated holidays and family functions together, and traveled together to visit family.

Overall the preponderance of credible evidence support's Respondent's claim of a nontraditional family relationship. While Respondent's testimony at trial was lacking in detail, the court attributes this to his age, possibly to his medical condition, and also to the fact that he is not an extremely articulate individual.

The court also does not credit the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses that they were unaware Respondent was living with Tenant in the Subject Premises and in apartment 10. In particular, the court notes that under the NEP Program Petitioner could not have approved the two bedroom Subject Premises as a permanent relocation for Tenant unless she had a two person household.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Respondent established the right to succeed to the tenancy of the Subject Premises, and the petition is dismissed.