ANOTHER FAMILY EVICTION CASE

An interesting note in this case is that the landlord/owner discharged their counsel on the eve of trial. RINIS v. TOLIOU, 2017 NY Slip Op 50964 - NY: King County, Civil Court 2017:

"The premises at issue is the second-floor apartment in a building ("the property") with two apartments, one on the first floor and the other on the second floor. The property was owned by Haritini Rinis and John Rinis as tenants by the entirety; they lived in the first-floor apartment. Haritini Rinis died in 2008 and by operation of law John Rinis became the property's sole owner.

At some point in 2009 John Rinis rented the second floor apartment either to Eleni Toliou alone or to both Eleni Toliou and her adult daughter Sofia Toliou. A year or so later, John Rinis and Eleni Toliou entered into a prenuptial agreement dated September 2, 2010. They married each other later that year.

Five years later, by a deed dated October 14, 2015, John Rinis conveyed the property to his three adult children (Nikolaos Rinis, Anastasia Rinis, and Konstantina Rinis-Dibello), i.e., the instant petitioners, but he retained a life estate for himself. Five months later, by a summons and complaint dated March 15, 2016, John Rinis (under the name of Ioannis Rinis) sued in Supreme Court, Kings County, index number 51230/2016, for a divorce from Eleni Toliou. That action is still pending.

By counsel, petitioners served a 30-day predicate notice of termination dated November 19, 2015 purporting to terminate as of December 31, 2015 respondents' alleged month-to-month tenancy made pursuant to an oral agreement. Thereafter petitioners began this proceeding. Respondents joined issue and moved for, among other things, summary judgment. By a decision and order dated October 7, 2016 the court (Fitzpatrick, J.) denied that relief "because petitioner raises issues of fact as to whether the subject building is marital property and whether the subject unit was a marital domicile or not."

At the trial herein, petitioners insisted that the premises was neither the marital domicile nor part of the marital domicile. In support John Rinis testified that he never lived in the second floor apartment, that he never slept or ate meals there, and that he went there only on afternoons to drink coffee or tea with his wife. The foregoing may be true. However, the court notes that John Rinis and Eleni Toliou filed from the same address joint income tax returns in 2012 and 2013, and also that in a sworn statement bearing the dates of October 17, 2012 and October 26, 2012 and submitted to Federal immigration authorities, John Rinis certified that he lived at the property with his wife. In pertinent part, the statement provides: "The home is two floors and it is my ownership [sic]. I certify that my wife Eleni's [sic] Toliou daughter, Sofia Toliou lives with us with her husband Dennis Rodriguez at the address 1858 67th Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11204."

This court may not review the ruling dated October 7, 2016 by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction that there is a question of fact as to whether "the subject building is marital property and whether the subject unit was a marital domicile or not." However, this court holds that subject matter jurisdiction to decide that issue lies elsewhere. See, e.g., Rosenstiel v Rosenstiel, 20 AD2d 71, 73 (1st Dep't, 1963), where the court held that that a summary proceeding might not be maintained "to evict a wife whose rights as such have not been annulled or modified by any court decree or special agreement." Here, Eleni Toliou's rights as a wife have not been annulled or modified by any court decree or special agreement; the issue of whether the premises is part of the marital domicile may not be decided in the instant proceeding.

Petitioners argue that Rosenstiel and its progeny, e.g., Billips v Billips, 189 Misc 2d 144 (Civ Ct, NY Co, 2001) (Acosta, J.), are inapposite because those proceedings were between spouses while the instant proceeding is not between spouses but instead is between a stepmother and stepchildren who have no obligation to support one another. Especially in view of John Rinis' having retained a life interest in the property, the court holds that this argument exalts form over substance and that its acceptance here might permit John Rinis to evade responsibilities either undertaken in the prenuptial agreement or else imposed by law.

Finally, the court notes that Heckman v Heckman, 55 Misc 3d 86 (App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists, 2017) is not to the contrary. The ruling there, even read broadly, holds no more than that the housing part of the Civil Court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain disputes between family members over the possession of real property as long as the family members are adults and the disputes do not include issues of support. Here there very well may be issues of support."