Judge Jose Rodriguez
Ex-husband George Nauth sought to recover possession of the subject premises from his ex-wife in this licensee holdover action arguing her license to occupy the home was terminated under a 10-day notice to quit. The court noted the petition did not specify which apartment George sought possession of, finding trial testimony revealed the building contained two apartments—one occupied by ex-wife Mahalia, and one leased to a third party. It ruled Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law §741 required the petition describe the premises from which removal was sought, and same must be accurate enough to permit a marshal to locate the premises without additional information. Also, the court found, based on indicia of true family, Mahalia was a family member, not a mere licensee based on the “marital relationship” as the parties were married for nearly 16 years. It stated the parties shared a home, Mahalia contributed financially to the household and engaged in an interdependent relationship. The court ruled that despite the divorce, a family relationship still existed. Thus, as a family member, Mahalia was not a mere licensee, and was entitled to greater rights under the “family member” exception in Minors v. Tyler. Hence, dismissal was granted.
