Matter of Fort Wash. Holdings, LLC v. Abbott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Fort Wash. Holdings, LLC v. Abbott

119 A.D.3d 492, 990 N.Y.S.2d 509

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 31, 2014

Docket11503 570049/11

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 492 (Matter of Fort Wash. Holdings, LLC v. Abbott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Fort Wash. Holdings, LLC v. Abbott, 119 A.D.3d 492, 990 N.Y.S.2d 509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered May 15, 2012, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered April 13, 2010, and reinstated the jury verdict in petitioner’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming without deciding that respondent preserved for appellate review his objection to the court’s decision to issue a verdict sheet that separately asked whether respondent and his aunt had an emotional commitment and interdependence, and whether they had a financial commitment and interdependence, we find that the verdict sheet was not an impediment to the jury’s ability to find that respondent qualified as a family member for succession purposes (see 9 NYCRR 2204.6 [d] [3] [i]). The regulation explicitly states that a person seeking to succeed to a rent-regulated apartment based upon a nontraditional family relationship must establish both emotional and financial commitment and interdependence. The verdict sheet merely tracked the regulation. Further, the jury was correctly instructed to consider the totality of the relationship in evaluating the evidence (see Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201, 213 [1989]). The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that there was no financial commitment and interdependence.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered May 15, 2012, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered April 13, 2010, and reinstated the jury verdict in petitioner’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming without deciding that respondent preserved for appellate review his objection to the court’s decision to issue a verdict sheet that separately asked whether respondent and his aunt had an emotional commitment and interdependence, and whether they had a financial commitment and interdependence, we find that the verdict sheet was not an impediment to the jury’s ability to find that respondent qualified as a family member for succession purposes (see 9 NYCRR 2204.6 [d] [3] [i]). The regulation explicitly states that a person seeking to succeed to a rent-regulated apartment based upon a nontraditional family relationship must establish both emotional and financial commitment and interdependence. The verdict sheet merely tracked the regulation. Further, the jury was correctly instructed to consider the totality of the relationship in evaluating the evidence (see Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201, 213 [1989]). The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that there was no financial commitment and interdependence.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 492, 990 N.Y.S.2d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-fort-wash-holdings-llc-v-abbott-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack