Opinion
LT 27904/09.
Decided on March 25, 2010.
Gold Rosenblatt, Bronx, NY, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Brian J. Sullivan, Esq., MFY Legal Services, Inc., New York, NY, Attorneys for Respondent.
This is a licensee holdover proceeding. Petitioner alleges that respondent Paul Garrison is a licensee of Helen Lorge, the rent controlled tenant of record, who has permanently vacated the subject apartment (Apartment). Respondent, through counsel, seeks to succeed to Helen Lorge's tenancy on the ground that they shared a non — traditional, mother — son — like family relationship. Alternatively, respondent argues that Helen Lorge's late son, Michael Lorge, was the successor tenant. Respondent then claims that he is entitled to succeed to Michael Lorge's tenancy as they too shared a non — traditional family relationship, but as gay life partners. The court held a trial and now finds that respondent and Michael Lorge jointly succeeded to Helen Lorge's tenancy.
Trial
Petitioner called four witnesses at trial while respondent alone testified in his own behalf. Respondent however offered the only credible, detailed and informed testimony heard by the court. The court therefore fully credits his testimony.
On September 29, 1995, respondent and Michael Lorge spoke for the first time on a phone chat line. Over the next year, they continued talking by phone as respondent lived in Pennsylvania. They finally agreed to meet in person in New York on Christmas, 1996. Within a few months of their first date, respondent left Pennsylvania and rented a room near the Apartment to be close to Michael Lorge. Later that year, Michael Lorge introduced respondent to his mother, Helen Lorge, at Saint Brendan's Church in the Bronx.
In January 1998, respondent moved into the Apartment and began living there with Michael Lorge and his parents, Helen and Thomas Lorge. Respondent and Michael Lorge shared a bedroom and a single bed, but the Lorges "never acknowledged their relationship."
Six months later, Michael Lorge was arrested for a crime for which he would eventually serve the next two years in prison. During that time, respondent and Michael Lorge spoke "every other day" by phone. They also exchanged letters every week ( see Resp. Exh. C). In those notes, Michael Lorge repeatedly declares his love for respondent, consoles him over their separation, and shares countless intimate details with his "soulmate" ( id.).
In the meantime, respondent continued to reside in the Apartment with Helen and Thomas Lorge. Respondent spent most of his time with Helen Lorge whom he characterized as "like an adopted mother." He fondly recalled watching soap operas with Helen Lorge on the Soap Network, particularly General Hospital and All My Children. When they were not watching television, respondent and Helen Lorge were cooking together and sharing meals. They would "talk for a couple of hours" while respondent learned recipes from Helen Lorge. Indeed, as Helen Lorge's health declined, respondent began preparing all of the family's meals. Respondent also took Helen and Thomas Lorge to all of their frequent medical appointments and made sure that they took their daily medications. As the Lorges' health worsened, respondent cared for them for most of each day, and was unable to work as much outside of the home. Still, he found part — time work and contributed his earnings to the household.
In December 2000, Michael Lorge returned to the Apartment. Although Michael Lorge's incarceration "strained the[ir] relationship" at first, respondent stated that it "eventually grew stronger." They watched television together, "went to the movies, took long drives and walked around downtown." Respondent and Michael Lorge also spent holidays together and visited friends in Patterson, New York. However, as Michael Lorge "believed in being private," their friends "did not know that much" about their relationship. Respondent though told his family about his relationship with Michael Lorge. He described their reaction as follows: "half [of] the family kind of disowned me [and] the other half talked to me rarely." He painfully revealed that his own mother calls him only twice each year and that she had not spoken to him at all between 2006 and 2009. He thus suffered "severe depression," but noted that "Mike was like an anchor for me . . . He would keep me grounded [and] keep me sane." When asked how often they relied upon each other for emotional support, respondent immediately replied, "24 — 7."
Over the next year, respondent and Michael Lorge cared for Helen and Thomas Lorge by taking them to their medical appointments and providing for their daily needs. Thomas Lorge's health however was failing and, on December 10, 2001, he died. Respondent attended Thomas Lorge's funeral with Helen and Michael Lorge and grieved with them.
Following Thomas Lorge's death, Helen Lorge had a series of strokes. She suffered profound mental deterioration and soon began mistaking the Apartment for a bank lobby or her childhood home in Manhattan. Respondent and Michael Lorge cared constantly for Helen Lorge, but it "became too much for both of [them] to keep up with her." After a tearful discussion with respondent, on April 21, 2003, Michael Lorge placed Helen Lorge in the Kings Harbor Nursing Home in the Bronx. Respondent and Michael Lorge visited Helen Lorge in the nursing home, but she often did not recognize Michael or confused him for her brother. Their visits to the nursing home became infrequent as respondent testified that they were "killing me the same as [they were] killing Mike." Nevertheless, respondent still visits Helen Lorge but stated that "it's a very hard thing" because she sometimes believes that respondent is Michael Lorge.
During this difficult time, respondent testified that he and Michael Lorge continued to support each other financially as well. The couple relied upon a joint Chase savings account from March 2002 through May 2003 (Resp. Exh. G). Respondent recalled that they closed the account in May 2003 so that Michael Lorge could qualify for Medicaid ( id.). However, they always pooled their earnings into "one pile of money" from which they paid their household expenses. Respondent and Michael Lorge then drew checks on respondent's Bank of America account for such shared charges as utilities, groceries and the cable bill (Resp. Exh. D).
On Christmas Day 2006, respondent and Michael Lorge exchanged wedding rings in the Apartment as an expression of their love for each other. They considered themselves married and continued living in the Apartment as a couple.
Tragically though, on Valentine's Day 2009, Michael Lorge was shot six times in the back of his head. The execution occurred outside of the apartment building while Michael Lorge was leaving for work. Respondent was so devastated by his partner's murder, that he later attempted suicide. Since Michael Lorge's killing, respondent testified that his "life has been a day — to — day struggle."
None of petitioner's witnesses controverted respondent's compelling testimony. For example, Ndue Gelaj identified himself as a "part owner of the building." Mr. Gelaj knew that Helen Lorge was the last tenant of record. Yet when asked what was the basis of this proceeding, Mr. Gelaj replied, "nonpayment of rent." Mr. Gelaj was then shown the predicate Notice to Quit which he signed. However, Mr. Gelaj testified that he did not understand either its contents or its significance. He then admitted that he knew that Michael Lorge was living in the Apartment in 2003 and 2004.
Similarly, Miter Gelaj also identified himself as a "part owner of the building." He testified that he "had maintained the building for over 30 years." In that role, he visits the building "once or twice a day" and has "a personal relationship with the tenants." Thus, he knew Helen and Thomas Lorge as well as Michael Lorge. However, he testified that he "never saw Garrison in the building."
Petitioner's next witness was Helen Lorge's sister, Joan Csizmazia. She testified that she had a "good relationship" with her sister and that they were "close." Ms. Csizmazia recalled visiting her sister "while she was [living] in the Apartment." Although these visits were infrequent, Ms. Csizmazia noted that "Michael was living there" except for "a two-year period in the nineties." Ms. Csizmazia remembered that she last saw Michael Lorge in the Apartment in March 2003. She characterized her relationship with him as "fair." Indeed, although she met respondent at Michael Lorge's funeral, she admitted that she did not know that her nephew was gay until she read about his murder in the newspapers.
Finally, the court heard from Helen Lorge's nephew, John Zechowski. Mr. Zechowski testified that he and Michael Lorge had a "good relationship" and that he visited the Apartment "every once in awhile." Mr. Zechowski admitted however, that he had not spoken with Michael Lorge since Thomas Lorge's funeral in 2001. Moreover, like Ms. Csizmazia, Mr. Zechowski did not know that Michael was gay until he learned of his execution. Mr. Zechowski also conceded that he "did not know if Michael [had] lived [in the Apartment] after high school." He speculated though that "after Tom's funeral, maybe Michael was there."
Discussion
Succession to a rent controlled apartment is governed by the NYC Rent and Eviction Regulations ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6 et seq.). As amended, those provisions essentially codified the Court of Appeals' landmark holding in Braschi v. Stahl Associates, 74 NY2d 201. In Braschi, the Court confronted the meaning of the term family as used in the rent control regulations. Those provisions protected from eviction, "either the surviving spouse of the deceased tenant or some other member of the deceased tenant's family who has been living with the tenant" ( id., 74 NY2d at 206, emphasis in original). The Court held that the term family, as used in 9 NYCRR 2204.6[d], should not be rigidly restricted to those people who have formalized their relationship. . . . The intended protection against sudden eviction should not rest on fictitious legal distinctions or genetic history, but instead should find its foundation in the reality of family life ( id., 74 NY2d at 211).
Protection from eviction should therefore
. . .be based upon an objective examination of the relationship of the parties. . .including the exclusivity and longevity of the relationship, the level of emotional and financial commitment, the manner in which the parties have conducted their everyday lives and held themselves out to society, and the reliance placed upon one another for daily family services [citations omitted]. These factors are most helpful, although it should be emphasized that the presence or absence of one or more of them is not dispositive since it is the totality of the relationship as evidenced by the dedication, caring and self — sacrifice of the parties which should, in the final analysis, control ( id., 74 NY2d at 212 — 213).
Current rent control regulations reflect the broad definition of "family" enunciated by the Braschi Court ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][3]). The term "family member" now includes both traditional as well as non — traditional family relationships; they range from varying degrees of relatives of the tenant of record to "any other person residing with the tenant in the housing accommodation as a primary residence who can prove emotional and financial commitment and interdependence between such person and the tenant" ( id.). However, "no single factor shall be solely determinative" in verifying a non — traditional family relationship ( id.). The regulations now protect from eviction, members of a rent controlled tenant's "family," as broadly redefined, who have primarily resided with the tenant in the apartment for either two years immediately prior to the tenant permanently vacating the apartment, or for one year where the family member is disabled ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][1]).
Michael Lorge's Succession
Under these provisions, Michael Lorge clearly succeeded to his mother's tenancy. The parties agreed that Michael Lorge was Helen Lorge's son. They also did not seriously dispute that Michael Lorge continuously occupied the Apartment, except during his incarceration from 1998 — 2000. Incarceration however does not interrupt the two — year co — residency requirement ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][1][c]; see also Corr v. Westchester Co. Dep't of Social Services, 33 NY2d 111, 115, ["Ordinarily a patient or inmate of an institution does not gain or lose a residence or domicile, but retains the domicile he [or she] had when he [or she] entered the institution"]; Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates , 58 AD3d 506 , 508 [1st Dept 2009], citing Farrell v. Lautob Realty Corp., 204 AD2d 597, 598 [2d Dept 1994] [same]). In any event, the court credits respondent's testimony that Michael Lorge resided in the Apartment both before and after his incarceration. His testimony was supported by one of petitioner's own witnesses — Joan Csizmazia — who testified that Michael Lorge was living in the Apartment except during the period corresponding to his incarceration. Bank statements sent to Michael Lorge at the Apartment as early as 2002 further confirm his occupancy there. Moreover, respondent testified, without rebuttal, that Michael Lorge's residence in the Apartment continued through April 2003, when they had no choice but to place Helen Lorge in the Kings Harbor Nursing Home. Likewise, petitioner's first witness — Ndue Gelaj — testified that Michael Lorge had been living in the Apartment in 2003 and 2004. Michael Lorge therefore succeeded to his mother's tenancy upon her admission into the nursing home in April 2003.
Respondent's Succession
Michael Lorge's succession to his mother's tenancy did not however divest respondent of his independent right to co — succeed to that tenancy ( see 9 NYCRR § 2204.6 [d][1], [family members of the tenant of record acquire independent possessory rights which are not extinguished by the tenant's permanent vacatur]; Stanford Realty Assocs. v. Rollins, 161 Misc 2d 754, 75 [Civ Ct Kings Co 1994], [wife had independent possessory rights to rent controlled apartment and was a necessary party to a nonprimary residence proceeding]). The regulations do not establish a hierarchy of succession rights; rather, traditional and non — traditional family relationships enjoy equal standing to succeed to a tenancy ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d]). Thus, traditional family members do not succeed to a tenancy to the exclusion of non — traditional family members, or vice — versa. Nor do the regulations limit succession to one family member ( M L Jacobs v. DelGrosso, 133 Misc 2d 542, 543 [App Term 2d 11th Jud Dists, 1986], ["To hold otherwise, it would be necessary to assert, contrary to the impact of the above statute, that the mother succeeded to the right of her deceased husband to the exclusion of her daughter whose rights would be thereby impliedly derivative from the mother"]). Respondent and Michael Lorge were therefore permitted to jointly succeed to Helen Lorge's tenancy upon her permanently vacating the Apartment in April 2003.
At trial, respondent proved that he simultaneously maintained two non — traditional family relationships enabling him to succeed to Helen Lorge's tenancy: a gay life partnership with Michael Lorge; and a mother — son relationship with Michael's mother, Helen Lorge. Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that respondent's committed, long — term relationships with Helen and Michael Lorge not only sustained each other, but also formed the nucleus of a loving and close — knit family.
Respondent testified credibly that he and Michael Lorge lived together in the Apartment as life partners from 1998 until 2009, when Michael was murdered. Their relationship however began three years earlier in 1995 when they first spoke on a chat line and was clearly one of long duration as contemplated by the regulations ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][3][i][a]; see also RHM Estates v. Hampshire , 18 AD3d 326 [1st Dept 2005], [affirming finding of succession for a 15 year — long relationship]).
During these 14 years, respondent and Michael Lorge shared a deep emotional commitment to each other. In 1997, after two years of talking on the telephone, respondent left his home in Pennsylvania and rented a room near the Apartment, simply to be near Michael Lorge. By 1998, respondent had moved into the Apartment, but Michael Lorge began serving a two — year prison term. Respondent however waited for Michael Lorge to be released. In his August 22, 1998 letter to respondent, Michael Lorge stated, "I can't help but wonder how lucky I am to have you in my life. There are extremely few people that would stick around voluntarily and wait for an incarcerated person. There's [ sic] no words to discribe [ sic] how much you mean to me" (Resp. Exh. C). The couple exchanged several such letters over the next two years which are replete with declarations of their love for each other. For example, in a letter dated November 9, 1998, Michael Lorge wrote:
The only things that keep me going are your letters, your voice, and the knowledge that one day I'll walk through the gate on my way back to you and the family. I know it's been tough on you. It's no picnic for me either. But always remember — each day is one less that we have to worry about, and one more closer to my being home. And from there on, a life together forever" (Resp. Exh. C).
Similarly, in a letter dated February 15, 2000, Michael Lorge referred to respondent as his "soulmate" and looked forward to "the day that we are together forever" ( id.).
Upon Michael Lorge's release from prison, he and respondent resumed their life together in the Apartment as a family. Respondent testified credibly that he and Michael Lorge were rarely apart and that "whenever you saw one, you saw the other." The couple spent nearly all of their time together, performing such family functions as cooking, watching television, going to the movies, taking long drives, walking around downtown, and just enjoying each other's company. They also celebrated holidays together with friends and family. Respondent testified that he prepared favorite family meals on Sundays and special occasions for Michael, Helen and Thomas Lorge. Every Christmas, the couple traveled to Patterson, New York and visited with friends. They then went out to dinner alone and took long walks while admiring the holiday decorations. On Christmas 2006 however, the couple broke with their holiday tradition and remained in the Apartment. Michael Lorge then surprised respondent with a set of wedding rings.
Petitioner argues, unpersuasively, that respondent's proof is insufficient, for he and Michael Lorge did not hold themselves out as a couple ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][3][f]). In fact though, respondent testified without contradiction that he revealed his relationship to his family; they however, were disinterested at best and disapproving at worst.
Respondent also candidly admitted that Michael Lorge "believed in being private," and so, their friends "did not know that much" about their relationship. Petitioner unduly emphasizes this fact and urges the court to deny respondent's succession claim. To do so however, would be to unfairly void the existence of respondent and Michael Lorge's genuinely loving, committed and family — like relationship, simply because they chose to remain private about their personal lives ( Lerad Realty v. Reynolds, NYLJ, August 29, 1990, at 22, col. 5 [Civ Ct NY Co], [". . . the absence of this factor . . . does not and should not defeat the existence of a committed relationship which rises to the level of family"]). The regulations do not countenance such a perverse result; to the contrary, they identify a constellation of varied factors which help measure the genuineness of a non — traditional family relationship while emphasizing that "no single factor shall be solely determinative" ( 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][3]). The regulations therefore protect gay life partners from having to choose between publicly disclosing their relationship — at potentially great cost to themselves and their families — and losing their homes ( see Lerad Realty, [requiring gay couples to hold themselves out to their families, who may not approve of their relationship, places "an unfair and unrealistic burden upon the surviving family member"]; LaMarche v. Miles, NYLJ, November 4, 2005, at 19, col. 1 [Civ Ct Kings Co], [same]).
Although respondent and Michael Lorge did not hold themselves out as a couple, the evidence established that they supported each other emotionally as well as financially. As noted earlier, respondent testified without contradiction that he and Michael Lorge always paid their household expenses from "one pile of money" to which they contributed their meager earnings. Indeed, respondent's federal tax transcripts for 2000 — 2002 reflect that he earned his wages while residing in the Apartment (Resp. Exh. A). The couple also shared a Chase joint savings account from 2002 to 2003 which was closed in May 2003 so that Michael Lorge could qualify for Medicaid ( see Resp. Exh. G). Respondent further introduced statements from his Bank of America checking account for 2005 through 2009 (Resp. Exh. D). Those statements confirm that respondent consistently paid for such shared expenses as the cable bill, utilities and groceries ( id.). Both the Chase and Bank of America statements were also always mailed to respondent at the Apartment ( id.).
Contrary to petitioner's general objection, the court finds that respondent's proof amply demonstrates that he and Michael Lorge intermingled their limited finances. Financial interdependence must be measured with due regard for the relative economic status of the parties ( see Roberts Ave Assocs. v. Sullivan, 2003 NY Slip Op 51091[U], *1 [App Term 1st Dept], ["The absence of documentary evidence of intermingling of finances does not undermine respondent's succession claim where the parties had limited assets, and where other criteria for succession are present (citations omitted)]." See also 176 East 3rd St., LLC v. Wright, NYLJ, January 19, 2001, at 26, col. 5 [App Term 1st Dept], citing Llorente v. Stackiewicz, NYLJ, February 22, 1995, at 31, col. 4 [App Term 1st Dept], [absence of joint accounts or financial transactions is not dispositive where couple had modest income]). Given the couple's scant earnings, particularly when respondent began to care full — time for Helen Lorge, it would be unreasonable to require respondent to produce a vast portfolio of joint assets. The couple's limited bank statements clearly show that they shared what little money they earned to pay for all household expenses. In any event, the absence of documentary proof of the intermingling of finances "does not negate the conclusion that [the tenant] and respondent had a family — like relationship" which was otherwise established by testimonial evidence as here ( RHM Estates v. Hampshire, 18 AD3d at 327; see also Arnie Realty Corp. v. Torres, 294 AD2d 193, 193 — 194 [1st Dept 2002], [same]).
One of the strongest indicators of the couple's devotion to each other though lies in respondent's relationship to Helen Lorge. Michael Lorge introduced respondent to his mother in 1997, shortly before respondent moved into the Apartment. However, upon Michael Lorge's incarceration in 1998, respondent immediately developed a mother — son — like relationship with Helen Lorge which continued through her admission into the Kings Park Nursing Home in 2003. As detailed above, respondent considered Helen Lorge to be "like an adopted mother." They spent most of each day watching soap operas, cooking, sharing meals and "talk[ing] for a couple of hours." Helen Lorge even taught respondent recipes which he then prepared for the family.
Michael Lorge's letters corroborate respondent's description of his relationship with Helen Lorge. For example, on July 27, 1998, Michael Lorge encouraged respondent to spend time with his mother and looked forward to "return[ing] to my family and my love" (Resp. Exh. C). Similarly, on January 18, 1999, Michael Lorge sent a box of magazines to respondent and wrote: "You look over them [ sic] first, then give them to Mom. There is a collection of some favorite puppies. Keep these, but show the Dokker Khacki's [ sic] Ridgeback to Mom and Dad before you put them away" ( id.). And on February 27, 1999, Michael Lorge wrote, "me [ sic] hope as always that things are ok with you, Mommy and Daddy. . ." ( id.).
Consistent with these letters, respondent took both Helen and Thomas Lorge to their frequent medical appointments and ensured that they took their daily medications ( see 25 West 68th Street, LLC v. Whitman, 2008 NY Slip Op 51610[U], * 1 [App Term 1st Dept], [affirming finding of succession where respondent accompanied tenant to medical appointments]). When he was not caring for the Lorges, respondent took whatever work he could find and contributed his earnings to the household. Once Michael Lorge was released from prison, he and respondent shared the responsibility of caring for both Helen and Thomas Lorge.
Respondent, Helen and Michael Lorge's lives were so enmeshed that Helen Lorge even attempted to designate respondent and Michael Lorge as her joint agents in a power of attorney form (Resp. Exh. E). And when Helen Lorge's mental atrophy became so profound that respondent and Michael Lorge could no longer adequately care for her, they discussed, as any family would, the tragic inevitability of placing Helen in a nursing home. Once Helen Lorge entered the Kings Park Nursing Home on April 21, 2003, respondent and Michael Lorge visited her there together, despite how agonizing it was for the couple to see her in such a debilitated state. Even at the time of trial — nearly one year since Michael Lorge's murder — respondent continued to visit Helen Lorge in the nursing home.
Neither Ms. Cszmazia nor Mr. Zechowski rebutted any of respondent's detailed and highly credible testimony. To the contrary, their testimony revealed that they spent very little time with the Lorges and underscored the fact that it was respondent and Michael Lorge who were Helen Lorge's true family. Likewise, the court does not credit Miter Gelaj's self — serving and conclusory testimony that he never saw respondent in the building. Ndue Gelaj — who signed the predicate notice — offered no testimony in this vein. Nor did any of petitioner's witnesses controvert respondent's credible testimony and proof that he continuously resided in the Apartment and maintained non — traditional family relationships with Helen and Michael Lorge.
In RHM Estates v. Hampshire, 18 AD3d at 327, the Court upheld a finding of succession under facts similar to those presented here. There, as here, the respondent lived with the tenant of record for many years ( id.). The respondent also received mail at the apartment, including bank statements ( id.). She shared holidays and birthdays with the tenant and they regularly ate meals together in the apartment ( id.). When the tenant's health declined, the respondent, as here, provided him with substantial care and support ( id.). Based on this showing, the Court concluded that, "the totality of the evidence before the trial court supported its determination that the respondent and [the tenant] lived together. . .as non — traditional family members" ( id.). No less a result should pertain here.
The Court of Appeals keenly observed in Braschi, that it is the "totality of the relationship as evidenced by the dedication, caring and self — sacrifice of the parties which should, in the final analysis, control" ( 74 NY2d at 213). The evidence overwhelmingly established that respondent selflessly devoted his life to caring for and supporting Helen and Michael Lorge in every way. From cooking and sharing meals, to contributing his earnings to the household, to accompanying the Lorges to their medical appointments, respondent was at the epicenter of Helen and Michael Lorge's lives. He was Michael Lorge's "soulmate." However, he was also as much of a loving son to Helen Lorge as Michael Lorge. Respondent therefore had as equal a right to succeed to Helen Lorge's tenancy as Michael Lorge had when she entered the Kings Harbor Nursing Home on April 21, 2003. Indeed, such loving, committed, long — term relationships are the very types of non — traditional families that Braschi and the ensuing regulations sought to protect.
Respondent's highly credible testimony established, well beyond a preponderance of the evidence, that he lived with the Helen and Michael Lorge" as part of a nurturing and stimulating family relationship . . . as a family unit for at least the requisite period of time" and not in furtherance of some nefarious scheme to succeed to the apartment' so that he comes within [the regulation's] protective aegis'" ( 300 East 34th Street Corp. v. Habeeb, 248 AD2d 50, 55 [1st Dept 1997], quoting Lesser v. Park 65 Realty Corp., 140 AD2d 169, 174 [1st Dept 1988]. See also 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][2], ["affirmative obligation" of establishing succession rights to a rent controlled apartment rests with the family member who lived with the tenant and whose identity was not disclosed to the landlord]). Petitioner's sparse proof does not preponderate over respondent's "plausible and fully credited testimonial evidence" ( Morton St. Assocs., LLC v. Volpe, 2008 NY Slip Op 50483 [U], * 1 [App Term 1st Dept]).
In sum, respondent has spent the last 12 years of his life in the Apartment. During that time, he laughed, loved and grieved there with the Lorges. Sadly, Thomas Lorge died; Michael Lorge was murdered; and Helen Lorge was institutionalized. Although respondent has lost the only family he has ever known, he need not also lose his family home.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the court finds that respondent succeeded to Helen Lorge's rent controlled tenancy on April 21, 2003. The Clerk of the Court shall enter a final judgment in favor of respondent dismissing the petition. The parties shall recover their exhibits from the Part T Clerk in Room 470 forthwith. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.