We agree with the trial court and Appellate Term that respondent-appellant's relationship to the tenant was that of a close friend and roommate not characterized by the requisite "emotional and financial commitment and interdependence" connoting a family relationship (Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co., 74 N.Y.2d 201, 211), and that she was therefore not entitled to succession rights to the subject rent stabilized apartment as a nontraditional family member under the standards set forth in Rent Stabilization Code (9 N.Y.CRR) § 2520.6 (o) (2) and § 2523.5 (b) (1). The women never intermingled their finances or jointly owned real or personal property, held themselves out as a family unit, executed documents formalizing legal obligations, jointly celebrated most major holidays or attended important celebrations with each other's families (see, Ramirez v. Lewis, 177 A.D.2d 296). Appellant's argument that it is a denial of equal protection to exclude adult friends in a sibling-like relationship from the class of persons entitled to succession rights is improperly raised for the first time on this appeal (Matter of Garfield, 14 N.Y.2d 251, 260), and in any event the relationship here was that of roommates rather than siblings (compare, Colon v. Frias, 162 Misc.2d 36 [Civ Ct, Kings County, 1994]).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.