This case involved a licensee holdover proceeding. The sole issue submitted to the jury was whether the nephew of the deceased rent-controlled tenant of record (tenant), “qualified as a nontraditional family member entitled to succeed to his aunt’s tenancy….” The jury found in favor of the petitioner and rejected the nephew’s succession claim. The jury found that the nephew’s relationship with the tenant “lacked ‘financial commitment and interdependence.’” However, the trial court granted the nephew’s motion “to set aside the verdict.” The petitioner appealed. The Appellate Term (court) reversed and reinstated the jury verdict.
The court stated that “[u]nder the definition of ‘family member’ provided by the court in its charge without objection by [nephew], the jury’s determination of the succession issue in petitioner’s favor was supported by legally sufficient evidence and comported with the weight of the evidence.” “The [nephew's] own testimony and that of his witnesses demonstrated that he and the tenant did not jointly own property or intermingle their finances in any meaningful way….” The tenant had named her son, not the nephew, “as beneficiary under her will and as attorney in fact in a power of attorney.” The son handled the tenant’s “financial transactions and paid for durable household items.” The nephew “generally did not contribute to such household costs as rent or electricity, although, so far as shown, financially able to do so for much of his co-occupancy [sic] with the tenant.”
