Dejesus v. Rodriguez

CourtNew York Civil Court
Citation768 N.Y.S.2d 126,196 Misc.2d 881
Decision Date07 August 2003
PartiesROBERTO DEJESUS, Petitioner,<BR>v.<BR>ALEXANDRA RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

196 Misc.2d 881
768 N.Y.S.2d 126

ROBERTO DEJESUS, Petitioner,
v.
ALEXANDRA RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

August 7, 2003.


Jacobi, Sieghardt, Bousanti & Piazza, P.C., Staten Island (Mark S. Piazza of counsel), for petitioner.

Legal Aid Society, Staten Island (Sarah T. Gillman of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RONNI D. BIRNBAUM, J.

Petitioner brings this licensee holdover proceeding to recover

[196 Misc.2d 882]

possession of 126 Lynhurst Avenue, Staten Island, New York, on the grounds that respondent's license to occupy the premises has expired or has been revoked by the owner and that the continued occupancy by respondent is without the permission of the owner. The issue to be decided is whether respondent who moved into the subject premises with the petitioner and lived together with their two children is a licensee. Based on the credible testimony and evidence adduced at trial, where both sides were represented by counsel, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Petitioner moved into this one-family house with Alexandra Rodriguez and their two minor children when the premises were purchased in November 2002. Petitioner is the biological father of the two minor children, ages eight and five, and the former boyfriend of respondent. Only petitioner's name appears on the deed as the holder of title. Respondent contends that the only reason her name does not appear on the title is due to her poor credit history. Petitioner and respondent resided together for 10 years and according to the respondent saved together for the purchase of this home. She asserts that she contributed half of the down payment to purchase the premises. During the time the parties lived together respondent claims she contributed to the mortgage payments and paid part of the household expenses. This arrangement continued until the parties had a violent dispute January 7, 2003. Petitioner moved out shortly thereafter. A petition for a family offense proceeding under article 8 of the Family Court Act (Index No. 328/03), sworn to on January 27, 2003, was filed by Alexandra Rodriguez against Roberto DeJesus. On February 6, 2003 the court issued a temporary order of protection. Mr. DeJesus was ordered to stay away from the home and business of Alexandra Rodriguez. On March 6, 2003 the order of protection was extended until May 5, 2003. On March 25, 2003 petitioner served a 10-day notice to quit upon respondent asserting that she was a licensee and that her license to occupy the premises was being terminated. Respondent failed to vacate and thereafter on April 17, 2003 petitioner served respondent with a notice of petition and petition. On May 5, 2003 a final order of protection was issued against Roberto DeJesus to refrain from committing any criminal offense and to stay away from Alexandra Rodriguez. This order is to remain in effect until May 4, 2004. Notwithstanding the stay away provisions of the order, Mr. DeJesus is authorized to have limited contact, pursuant to the order, to effectuate visitation with his

[196 Misc.2d 883]

children. The children continue to reside at the premises with their mother, Alexandra Rodriguez. There is a child support proceeding currently pending in Family Court.

Respondent asserts that she is not a licensee, having simultaneously moved in with the petitioner and contributed to the purchase price of the home and payment of household expenses. A licensee is one who enters upon or occupies lands by permission, express or implied, of the owner or under a personal, revocable, nonassignable privilege from the owner, without possessing any interest in the property and who becomes a trespasser thereon upon revocation of the permission or privilege. (Greenwood Lake & Port Jervis R.R. Co. v New York & Greenwood Lake R.R. Co., 134 NY 435 [1892]; Loren v Marry, 195 AD2d 776 [1993].) The law is clear that if the parties were married, the husband would not be able to bring a summary proceeding to evict the wife until other existing obligations were addressed by a court and the marriage terminated. (Rosenstiel v Rosenstiel, 20 AD2d 71 [1963]; see also Billips v Billips, 189 Misc 2d 144 [Civ Ct 2001].) Occupancy of the marital home by the wife does...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Heckman v. Heckman, NO. 2015-2003SC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • April 13, 2017
    ...[Suffolk Dist.Ct.2009] ; Williams v. Williams, 13 Misc.3d 395, 822 N.Y.S.2d 415 [Civ.Ct., N.Y. County 2006] ; DeJesus v. Rodriguez, 196 Misc.2d 881, 768 N.Y.S.2d 126 [Civ.Ct., Richmond County 2003] ; but see Piotrowski v. Little, 30 Misc.3d 609, 911 N.Y.S.2d 583 [Middletown City Ct.2010] ; ......
  • Kakwani v. Kakwani
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • June 20, 2013
    ...do with an eviction from the family residence or summary proceedings under the RPAPL § 713. In any event, in 2003 DeJesus v. Rodriguez, 196 Misc.2d 881, 768 N.Y.S.2d 126 was decided. In that case the titled petitioner sought to evict his former girlfriend and their two children, aged 5 and ......
  • Piotrowski v. Little
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 8, 2010
    ...2413829 (Suffolk Co. Dist. Ct., 2009);30 Misc.3d 612Griffith v. Reid, 2008 Misc. LEXIS 7531 (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Co); DeJesus v. Rodriguez, 196 Misc.2d 881, 768 N.Y.S.2d 126 (Civ. Ct., Richmond Co., 2003); Minors v. Tyler, 137 Misc.2d 505, 521 N.Y.S.2d 380 (Civ. Ct., Bronx Co., 1987). Other cour......
  • M.M. v. D.M., XXXXX/XXXX
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • February 23, 2018
    ...v Sirota, 164 Misc 2d 966 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1995]), an ex-girlfriend and minor children of the relationship (DeJesus v Rodriguez, 196 Misc 2d 881 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2003]), adult grandchildren (Williams v Williams, 13 Misc 3d 395 [Civ Ct, NY County 2006]), and a sister-in-law (Kak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Heckman v. Heckman, NO. 2015-2003SC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • April 13, 2017
    ...[Suffolk Dist.Ct.2009] ; Williams v. Williams, 13 Misc.3d 395, 822 N.Y.S.2d 415 [Civ.Ct., N.Y. County 2006] ; DeJesus v. Rodriguez, 196 Misc.2d 881, 768 N.Y.S.2d 126 [Civ.Ct., Richmond County 2003] ; but see Piotrowski v. Little, 30 Misc.3d 609, 911 N.Y.S.2d 583 [Middletown City Ct.2010] ; ......
  • Kakwani v. Kakwani
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • June 20, 2013
    ...do with an eviction from the family residence or summary proceedings under the RPAPL § 713. In any event, in 2003 DeJesus v. Rodriguez, 196 Misc.2d 881, 768 N.Y.S.2d 126 was decided. In that case the titled petitioner sought to evict his former girlfriend and their two children, aged 5 and ......
  • Piotrowski v. Little
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 8, 2010
    ...2413829 (Suffolk Co. Dist. Ct., 2009);30 Misc.3d 612Griffith v. Reid, 2008 Misc. LEXIS 7531 (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Co); DeJesus v. Rodriguez, 196 Misc.2d 881, 768 N.Y.S.2d 126 (Civ. Ct., Richmond Co., 2003); Minors v. Tyler, 137 Misc.2d 505, 521 N.Y.S.2d 380 (Civ. Ct., Bronx Co., 1987). Other cour......
  • M.M. v. D.M., XXXXX/XXXX
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • February 23, 2018
    ...v Sirota, 164 Misc 2d 966 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1995]), an ex-girlfriend and minor children of the relationship (DeJesus v Rodriguez, 196 Misc 2d 881 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2003]), adult grandchildren (Williams v Williams, 13 Misc 3d 395 [Civ Ct, NY County 2006]), and a sister-in-law (Kak......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT