## Facts

- Robert Drost was the sole deeded owner of a residence at 43 Louisa Court, Northport, New York.
- Drost and Kim Hookey, then dating, lived together at the Louisa Court property for more than three years.
- Before moving to Louisa Court, Hookey owned and lived in a separate house.
- During the relationship, Hookey transferred a one-half interest in her separate house to Drost in exchange for $25,000 used to cure her mortgage arrears.
- The relationship ended, and Drost moved out of the Louisa Court property.
- After the breakup, Drost sought to remove Hookey from Louisa Court; there was no lease or rent-based arrangement between them for that property.
- No children were involved, and the parties were not married.

## Issues

1. Whether a former cohabiting partner residing in property titled solely in the other partner’s name is properly treated as a “licensee” removable under RPAPL § 713(7).
2. Whether Hookey’s occupancy should instead be classified as a tenancy at will requiring a 30-day notice under Real Property Law § 228.
3. Whether Hookey’s prior transfer of a one-half interest in her separate residence to Drost affects her right to remain in possession of the Louisa Court property in a summary proceeding.

## Decision

- The court determined Hookey’s status at Louisa Court was that of a licensee, not a tenant at will.
- The court held that Drost could proceed under RPAPL § 713(7) to revoke the license and seek removal upon service of a 10-day notice to quit.
- The court rejected the argument that Real Property Law § 228’s 30-day notice requirement applied.
- The court treated Hookey’s transfer of a one-half interest in her separate house as a separate financial or property matter that did not convert her Louisa Court occupancy into a landlord-tenant tenancy.

## Legal Principles

- Where statutes do not define “licensee” or “tenant at will,” the classification turns on common-law distinctions and the parties’ legal rights and obligations.
- Absent a landlord-tenant relationship (such as a lease or rent arrangement), a person living in a family-type cohabitation arrangement in premises titled solely in another’s name is generally a licensee for purposes of RPAPL § 713(7).
- A cohabitant claiming protections inconsistent with licensee status must identify a specific statutory basis for continued occupancy or heightened notice requirements.
- A licensee may be removed in a summary proceeding under RPAPL § 713(7) after revocation of the license and service of the statutorily required 10-day notice to quit.
- Financial entanglements between cohabitants may support separate claims but do not, by themselves, establish a tenancy at will in the titled premises.

## Conclusion

The court held that a former girlfriend who cohabited in a house titled solely in the former boyfriend’s name, without a lease or rent-based arrangement and without a statutory right to remain, was a revocable licensee subject to removal in a summary proceeding upon a 10-day notice under RPAPL § 713(7), rather than a tenant at will entitled to a 30-day notice under Real Property Law § 228.


Drost v. Hookey, 25 Misc. 3d 210, 881 N.Y.S.2d 839 (Dist. Ct. Suffolk Cnty. 2009)