ACP 150 v. Josiane Hird; "John" "Doe"; "Jane" "Doe", Respondent(s) (2025)

Petitioner commenced this holdover proceeding alleging that Josiane Hird entered into possession of Unit 6D at 150 West End Avenue in Manhattan pursuant to a license granted by Phillip R. Zinn, who was then the rent-stabilized tenant of record of that apartment. Petitioner argues that any interest Ms. Hird had in the subject premises expired after Mr. Zinn's death on August 3, 2022, and the expiration of his last lease on February 28, 2023, and, as such, Petitioner is allowed to revoke any license extended to Ms. Hird and demand possession of the subject unit.

Ms. Hird, however, argues that she is entitled to succeed to Mr. Zinn's tenancy pursuant to § 2523.5[b] the Rent Stabilization Code and Public Housing Law § 14[4][a]. Ms. Hird alleges that she co-resided with Mr. Zinn in the subject premises for the necessary time period prior to his permanent vacatur and that she should be deemed his family member as defined broadly by RSC § 2520.6[o][2].

The Court conducted a trial on this matter over two days: on May 20 and May 22, 2025. Respondent consented to Petitioner's prima facie case in a stipulation dated April 8, 2025. Consequently, the Court was only asked to decide the merits of Respondent's succession defense. Two witnesses were called at trial. Respondent testified on her own behalf and entered numerous documents into evidence (as further explicated below.) In rebuttal Petitioner called one witness: Gloria Messer.

After trial, for the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Respondent established her right to succeed to Mr. Zinn's rent stabilized tenancy. As a result, the Petition is dismissed as it inaccurately describes Ms. Hird as a licensee.

I. Ms. Hird's Testimony

Ms. Hird was born in the north of France but came to New York in the mid-eighties and fell in love with the city. The Tenant of record, Philip Zinn (better known by his stage name "Danny Darrow") was a singer and actor who came to New York in the mid-twentieth century for a chance at fame. According to Ms. Hird, Mr. Zinn could sing almost anything but excelled at Frank Sinatra songs.

By the mid-nineties, Mr. Zinn had transitioned from entertaining to selling and repairing antique watches and jewelry. One of the places he sold antiques was a flea market at 67 2nd Avenue. Ms. Hird testified that she was selling antique bric-à-brac at this same flea market, and that was how she and Mr. Zinn met in 1996. According to Ms. Hird, the two quickly became good friends before agreeing to assist each other selling antiques. What started as a business relationship bloomed gradually into romance, and Mr. Zinn ultimately proposed that Ms. Hird move into the subject apartment with him in 1999. She agreed, giving up her apartment at 1290 1st Avenue in Lenox Hill and moving into Mr. Zinn's two-bedroom apartment near Lincoln Center.

According to Ms. Hird, she and Mr. Zinn fell deeply in love and remained very much in love for twenty-three years. They shared the same bed and used the spare bedroom as a home office where Mr. Zinn would repair jewelry. They played golf almost weekly with another couple when the weather was nice. They also began devoting their time to the Manhattan Neighborhood Network ("MNN"), a local public access television network. Mr. Zinn, ever the entertainer, began hosting a talk show called "Persons of Interest" on the network. In testimony, Ms. Hird gushed about Mr. Zinn's natural abilities as a host and interviewer, talking about how professional and confident he was. Ms. Hird acted as the producer for the show, running the control room and making graphics. The show ran bi-weekly for fifteen years, and was a lot of work to produce, with the couple researching their next guest, poring over what questions to ask them, and preparing small videos and pictures if necessary. They were never paid for this work but continued doing it just as a fun activity for them to share. According to Ms. Hird, between the golfing, running the business together, living in the apartment together, and running the television show together, she and Mr. Zinn were nearly inseparable.

Both Ms. Hird and Mr. Zinn had both been married and divorced twice when they met, and they were both determined not to make the same mistakes that had plagued past relationships. For Ms. Hird, this meant keeping her finances separate form Mr. Zinn's so she could retain independence. As such, while they managed their businesses together, they kept separate bank accounts and managed their own money. They divvied up household expenses, with Mr. Zinn paying the rent and the phone bill and Ms. Hird paying for food, laundry, and other expenses. They also decided not to marry, but to remain together as romantic partners.

Ms. Hird testified that she has not returned to France since 1992. As a result, Mr. Zinn never met any of her family. She had, however, met Mr. Zinn's mother Lottie while she was alive. His mother was then residing at Florence Nightengale Nursing Home, which has since closed. Ms. Hird indicated that she was not one for celebrations and limited the celebrating of birthdays to giving a card. Her religious differences with Mr. Zinn (he was Jewish, she Catholic) precluded the celebration of most holidays, though she attended the occasional seder with Mr. Zinn.

Ms. Hird introduced documentary evidence that buttressed her testimony regarding the nature of her relationship with Mr. Zinn. She introduced wills she and Mr. Zinn had drafted in 2008 (Exhs. A and B). Mr. Zinn left everything he owned to Ms. Hird and named her executor of his will. Ms. Hird likewise left everything she owned to Mr. Zinn. Ms. Hird's and Mr. Zinn's NYC Identification Cards (Exhs. G and H) lists each other as their emergency contacts. Mr. Zinn's 2006 passport (Exh. J) likewise identifies Ms. Hird as his emergency contact and lists the subject premises as his address. Mr. Zinn informed ACP Realty Group (who then managed the subject building) in a 2003 letter that Ms. Hird, is "very good friend" was living with him in the subject premises. (Exh. W). Ms. Hird testified that Mr. Zinn was a bit old fashioned and did not want to describe them as "lovers" or "boyfriend and girlfriend," and that this was an expected euphemism by a man of Mr. Zinn's age when describing their relationship. Similar letters were sent by Mr. Zinn in 2006 (Exh. X) and in March 2022 (Exh. Y.) The March 2022 letter was dictated to Ms. Hird by Mr. Zinn.

Respondent also introduced evidence supporting her cohabitation with Mr. Zinn at the subject premises. Mr. Zinn's voting records were introduced into evidence, showing that he was registered to vote at the subject premises. He voted in that precinct regularly, including in 2019, 2020 and via absentee ballot in 2021. Ms. Hird received mail at the subject premises on June 7, 2023, from Frist Republic Bank (Exh. S) and all of her Chase Bank statements were sent to the subject premises from 2020 to 2023 (Exh. T). Ms. Hird testified that she received a "Notice of Attempted Visit" from Adult Protective Services ("APS") indicating that they were looking for Mr. Zinn at the subject apartment on August 30, 2022. Finally, Respondent produced subpoenaed records from the Department of Finance (Exh. DD) showing that Mr. Zinn applied for and maintained SCRIE benefits in his name from 2014 until his death.

In or about mid-2019, Mr. Zinn developed a cancerous tumor in his solar plexus. He and Ms. Hird continued to sell their wares at the flea market and produce the talk show at MNN despite Mr. Zinn's health issues until the COVID-19 pandemic created a public health emergency in New York. The flea market shut down due to COVID (affecting their income) and MNN began restricting access to the studio, opting instead to air re-runs. According to Ms. Hird, Mr. Zinn continued to reside in the subject premises during this time.

In or about October of 2021 Mr. Zinn's cancer began progressing at an alarming rate, necessitating a more intensive course of treatment. He was required to go to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on 53rd Street between Lexington and 3rd Avenue several times a week to receive treatment. The treatment left him exhausted, and the trip from the subject premises on West End Avenue to Sloan Kettering was wearing on Mr. Zinn. According to Ms. Hird, it was at this point that Gloria Messer, another senior who volunteered MNN, invited Mr. Zinn to stay with her while he was receiving treatment until his health improved. Ms. Messer lived in an apartment at 240 East 55th Street, about two blocks from Sloan Kettering, making it much easier for Mr. Zinn to go to his appointments.

According to Ms. Hird, she did not trust Ms. Messer's intentions but agrees that Mr. Zinn should temporarily relocate for his health and wellbeing. Mr. Zinn did not take many possessions with him when he went to Ms. Messer's--just a toothbrush some jeans and a few tee-shirts. Mr. Zinn's health continued deteriorating after he decamped to Ms. Messer's apartment. Ms. Hird brought Mr. Zinn whatever items he needed from the apartment as time went on and discovered that Ms. Messer was becoming increasingly controlling of Mr. Zinn's time and activities. Ms. Hird indicated she would speak with Mr. Zinn by phone several times daily and would visit him whenever Ms. Messer allowed (at least once a week.) Mr. Zinn continued to receive mail at the apartment during this period, continued to pay rent for the subject premises, and came back to the apartment every week for at least an afternoon.

Mr. Zinn passed away on August 3, 2022 (see death certificate, Ex. AA). According to Ms. Hird, she had extremely limited her access to Mr. Zinn in the days leading to his death. Ms. Messer told the hospital she was Mr. Zinn's significant other and claimed that Ms. Hird had no relationship with him. Because of the hospital's COVID protocols this meant that Ms. Hird was not allowed in the hospital to see Mr. Zinn. Ms. Hird, desperate to see Mr. Zinn in the days before his death, claimed she was Mr. Zinn's sister on hospital paperwork. Ms. Messer had, by this point, completely stopped communicating with Ms. Hird, so Ms. Hird was not aware that Mr. Zinn had passed until the day after it occurred. She believes that Ms. Messer had Mr. Zinn cremated without consulting her, and she does not know what happened to his remains.

II. Ms. Messer's Testimony

Ms. Messer's testimony differed significantly from the testimony offered by Ms. Hird. She claims that she and Mr. Zinn had been in an exclusive romantic relationship and that they had lived together at her apartment on 55th Street since at least 2009. According to Ms. Messer, she met Mr. Zinn at MNN, where she was a television producer. They met "around 2008" though she could not recall the exact circumstances of their meeting because she does not have a good memory. Ms. Messer claims that she, and not Ms. Hird, directed "Persons of Interest" for Mr. Zinn. No details were provided about the nature of the work she did for the show.

Ms. Messer was unable to provide details on how her relationship to Mr. Zinn transitioned form working on a television show to romance but claimed it happened quickly and that before long they were spending the night together every night at her apartment. According to Ms. Messer, their main joint activities were eating together at her apartment, entertaining at her apartment and shopping. Ms. Messer confirmed that she took care of all the expenses related to her apartment.

Ms. Messer claimed that Mr. Zinn had so many belongings that there was "a hoarding problem" in the subject premises, so he could not give up the space and continued to pay rent for the space until his death. Mr. Zinn brought his clothes and some papers to Ms. Messer's apartment but kept most of his belongings at the subject premises for the entirety of their fourteen-year relationship. Ms. Messer said she would accompany Mr. Zinn to the subject premises to retrieve any belongings that he might need and described it as "a mess." She acknowledged that Ms. Hird was residing at the subject premises but said that she resided in a separate bedroom from Mr. Zinn's.

Ms. Messer characterized Ms. Hird as Mr. Zinn's "his girl Friday", who he paid $20 to help him carry his things to the flea market on Saturdays and asked to bring him his mail. Ms. Messer insinuated that Mr. Zinn did so out of pity for Ms. Hird.

Ms. Messer's testimony aligned with Ms. Hird's insofar as she agreed that she was the only one who had access to Mr. Zinn's hospital room, though she disputed that she ever restricted Ms. Hird's access to Mr. Zinn.

Ms. Messer said that Mr. Zinn died at her apartment. Strangely, Mr. Zinn's death certificate lists the subject premises, and not Ms. Messer's apartment, as his "usual residence." The information on this death certificate was reported by Ms. Messer. According to Ms. Messer, she had Mr. Zinn cremated by "someone that she called from the internet" and that Ms. Hird was not involved in that decision. Incredibly, Ms. Messer testified that she could not remember what she did with Mr. Zinn's ashes. She also claimed that Mr. Zinn had executed a will in the year before his death and that she was a beneficiary. She did not know who Mr. Zinn named as executor and never submitted the will for probate. She claimed she was unable to produce the will because she had destroyed it after Mr. Zinn died due to the limited space in her apartment. She also claimed that Mr. Zinn had given her power of attorney and medical power of attorney, but that she had destroyed these documents as well.

No documentary evidence was offered by Petitioner in support of Ms. Messer's claims.

III. Credibility of Witnesses

It is impossible to reconcile the testimony of Ms. Hird with that of Ms. Messer. Amongst other inconsistencies, they both claim to have been in an exclusive romantic relationship with Mr. Zinn from 2008 until his death, they both claim to have slept with him every night for most of this period, and they both claim to have produced his talk show. These inconsistencies are of such a scale that they are unlikely to be the result of simple mistake. It is far more likely that the inconsistencies are a result of misrepresentation.

The Court finds Ms. Messer's testimony was not credible for several reasons. First, her demeanor on the stand indicated she was being untruthful. She evaded eye contact with the Court and her facial expressions were furtive. Her affect was mostly flat when discussing Mr. Zinn's death and the subsequent arrangements for his body.

Second, her testimony was inconsistent with someone in the type of relationship she purported to have with Mr. Zinn. Ms. Messer provided no explanation why, if she had been in a loving relationship for fourteen years, she would forget what she had done with his ashes, or why she would feel it necessary to destroy his will to rid her apartment of clutter.

Third, she cast doubt on her own credibility by repeatedly highlighting her forgetfulness.

Fourth, she provided no documentary or testimonial evidence to support her claims. No pictures were produced. No detail was given about the nature of their relationship. Nothing was provided to corroborate her claims.

Finally, her testimony was inconsistent with her own reporting on Mr. Zinn's death certificate.

Ms. Hird's testimony, on the other hand, was entirely credible. Her demeanor and manner on the stand appeared truthful and her testimony remained consistent throughout. She provided a level of detail consistent with someone being forthright the documentation she provided supported her claims. Her emotions displayed during her testimony were consistent with someone in the type of relationship she testified she had with Mr. Zinn, and she frankly discussed aspects of her language in a matter-of-fact manner, even when those aspects were not beneficial to her succession defense.

IV. Ms. Hird's Succession Rights

Ms. Hird asks the Court to find that she is a lawful successor to Mr. Zinn's tenancy and therefore entitled to a lease for the subject premises in her name. She invokes that section of the Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR § 2523.5[b]) dictating that a senior citizen family member of a rent-stabilized tenant may not be evicted after the tenant of record permanently vacates, so long as that family member can establish that they co-resided with the tenant of record for no less than one year before the vacatur.

To prevail on this affirmative defense, Ms. Hird must affirmative establish several facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Many of these facts are not contested by the landlord. It is uncontested that Mr. Zinn died on August 3, 2022. (See Exh. AA, Mr. Zinn's Death Certificate.) A tenant's death is considered permanent vacatur under the Rent Stabilization Code, so Ms. Hird has established that Mr. Zinn permanently vacated. 1970 University LLC v. Estate of Garcia, 56 Misc 3d 95, 97, 58 N.Y.S.3d 897 [AT 1st Dep't 2017]. She has also conclusively established that she is 76 years old via both her own credible testimony and via documentary evidence (Exh, G, Ms. Hird's NYC Identification Card). As a senior citizen, Ms. Hird therefore needs only establish a one-year co-residency period with Mr. Zinn instead of the usual two-year period. (See 9 NYCRR § 2204.6[d][1], [d][3][ii].) She has also established through her own credible testimony and the documentary evidence submitted that she used the subject premises as her primary residence throughout the one-year co-residency period. (See Exhs. G, J, S, T, W.) Her primary residency was not credibly challenged by Petitioner.

Petitioner disputes Ms. Hird's assertion that she had a family-like relationship with Mr. Zinn and her contention that she resided with him for the requisite year before his death. The court will address each in turn.

A. Ms. Hird's Familial Relationship with Mr. Zinn

The Rent Stabilization Code does not require a potential successor to be related by marriage or blood to the vacated tenant of record in order to be considered their "family member." Following the Court of Appeals' landmark decision Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co. (74 NY2d 201, 543 N.E.2d 49, 544 N.Y.S.2d 784 [1989]), the Division of Housing and Community Renewal ("DHCR) expanded the definition of "family member" in the Rent Stabilization Code beyond simple blood or marital relationship.¹ (9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o]) While a demonstration of relation by marriage or blood is still sufficient in many instances for a finding of a familial relationship (see 9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o][1]), a potential successor can alternatively demonstrate a non-traditional familial relationship by showing an emotional and financial commitment with the tenant of record and an "interdependence" between themselves and the tenant of record. (9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o][2].)

Ms. Hird argues that, although she was never married to Mr. Zinn, she qualifies as his family member entitled to succession rights under this second, more expansive definition. When determining whether someone qualifies as a family member under this rubric, the Rent Stabilization Code includes a list of factors that "may" be considered by a finder of fact, "without limitation." Id. These include longevity of the relationship; sharing of household expenses; intermingling of finances, engaging in family-type activities like attending family functions together; formalizing of legal obligations such as naming one another as beneficiaries in wills or executions of powers of attorney; holding themselves out as family members to their community, religious institutions and families; performing family functions; and other actions which evidence the intention to create a long-term emotionally committed relationship. (9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o][2][i-viii].) Not all these factors need to be met, and no single one of these factors is determinative. (9 NYCRR § 2520.6[o][2].) Though these factors may be helpful in determining whether a non-traditional family relationship exists, the totality of the relationship as evidenced by the caring and self-sacrifice of the successor and the tenant controls in the final analysis. Braschi, supra., 74 NY2d 201, 213, 544 N.Y.S.2d 784, 543 N.E.2d 49.

Ms. Hird met the burden of showing that she had a non-traditional family relationship with Mr. Zinn by a preponderance of the evidence. The emotional and financial interdependence was evident in the content and manner of the testimony she provided, as well as the documentary evidence she introduced. Ms. Hird was Mr. Zinn's long-term romantic partner from at least 1999 until the time of his death. They shared a bed. Their financial fortunes were intertwined since they co-managed their business together. They shared household expenses and spent most of each day together. They cooked together, did laundry together, produced a public access television show together, golfed together, and ate out with friends together. They visited Mr. Zinn's mother together when she was still alive. They created wills naming each other as sole beneficiaries. Ms. Hird took care of Mr. Zinn when he got cancer and regularly visited him at Ms. Messer's apartment after he temporarily relocated there. Finally, and perhaps most convincingly, the efforts Ms. Hird undertook to see Mr. Zinn as he neared his death and the anguish she displayed at not being able to spend that time with him is deeply convincing of the familial relationship she shared with Mr. Zinn.

To the extent that Ms. Messer's testimony contradicted the testimony and evidence proffered by Ms. Hird, the Court finds that testimony not to be credible.

B. Co-Residency Period

As described above, the Rent Stabilization Code requires that a senior citizen such as Ms. Hird co-reside with the tenant of record in the subject premises for one year prior the tenant of record's permanent vacatur. In the present circumstances, this would require Ms. Hird to co-reside with Mr. Zinn in the subject premises from August 4, 2021, to August 3, 2022.²

Setting aside Ms. Messer's non-credible testimony that Mr. Zinn resided with her since 2008, it is conceded by Ms. Hird that Mr. Zinn relocated to Ms. Messer's apartment in or about October 2021 to be closer to his required cancer treatments at Sloan Kettering. Petitioner contends that this relocation forecloses the award of succession rights to Ms. Hird because she failed to co-reside with Mr. Zinn in the apartment for the required year. The Court disagrees, and finds that under the circumstances presented, Mr. Zinn's temporary relocation does not constitute an abridgement of the co-residency period with Ms. Messer.

At the time Mr. Zinn accepted Ms. Messer's offer to stay with her, he was an eighty-four-year-old immunocompromised senior, suffering from cancer of the solar plexus, and undergoing intensive treatment at Sloan Kettering several times a week. Ms. Hird credibly testified that the two-and-a-half-mile journey from the subject premises to Sloan Kettering was wearing on Mr. Zinn. This is understandable. Under the circumstances, with his finances affected by the shutdown and the threat of COVID increasing, the voyage to Soan Kettering must have been fraught. During this period, COVID was still a pressing concern for seniors like Mr. Zinn. New York had just "reopened" after more than a year of COVID restrictions.³ Evictions had only been allowed to proceed in August 2021  ⁴ and children had only been allowed to return to school in September 2021.⁵ The COVID lockdown had closed the flea market that Mr. Zinn and Ms. Hird attended to sell their wares and gain income. What income they still derived from the business during that time was the result of phone calls from existing clients. Then, just as people began venturing back into the streets, the Delta variant of COVID began spreading throughout New York City in the summer of 2021. This was the most transmissible COVID variant yet, and the death rates once again soared for seniors like Mr. Zinn.⁶ The prospect of traveling nearly two miles several times a week (be it by foot, public transportation, or expensive taxis) must have been daunting.

Based on the testimony provided and evidence introduced, the court finds it more likely than not that Mr. Zinn meant for his relocation to Ms. Messer's apartment in October 2021 to be temporary so that he could easily and safely receive cancer treatment, and that he intended to return to the subject premises if his treatment was successful. There's no evidence that Mr. Zinn and Ms. Hird had a falling out before he decamped to Ms. Messer's. He did not pack many of his belongings before he left the subject premises. According to Ms. Hird, he brought only a few tee shirts and his toothbrush. He continued receiving mail at the subject premises. He continued to list the subject premises on all his documents, including his voting registration, his tax returns, and his driver's license. He continued receiving SCRIE benefits at the subject unit. Moreover, the testimony showed that he continued to visit the subject premises until his death. Under these circumstances, Mr. Zinn maintained the necessary connection to the subject premises to deem that he did not vacate until the time of his death.

The circumstances thus presented differ form those found in Matter of Glass v. Glass (29 AD3d 347 [1st Dept. 2006]) and 441 Convert LLC v. Stafford (101 AD3d 479 [1st Dept. 2012].) In both of those cases, the date of vacatur is pinned to the date that the respective tenants of record went into nursing homes, which people do not normally return from. Moreover, the co-residency period between the proposed successors and the tenants of record are far more tenuous than the circumstances presented here. In Glass, the proposed successors never lived with the tenant of record before she entered the nursing home. In 441 Convert the proposed successor lived with the tenant of record for less than the requisite time before she entered the nursing home. Regardless, the First Department considered the move to the nursing home to be permanent, and it was therefore appropriate to deem the date of that move to be the vacate date rather than the date of death. Here, the evidence shows that Mr. Zinn maintained the subject premises as his primary residence while he was temporarily staying with Ms. Messer and that he intended to return. Under these circumstances, the date of vacatur is more appropriately pegged to the date of his death, and he maintained the necessary connection to the subject premises while he was away.

The facts of Matter of 865 First LLC v. LLC v. New York State Div of Hous. & Community Renewal are more relevant to the matter hand. 210 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2022]. In that matter, the First Department affirmed a DHCR finding of succession even though the successor's parents (the tenants of record) spent significant time at another residence in Duchess County for the entirety of the successor's time living in the apartment. The Court found that "the fact that [the] parents maintained a home in Duchess County was immaterial, as the evidence established that [the successor] resided with them during their time in the apartment." Id. at 458. Likewise, here, Mr. Zinn continued to maintain a sufficient connection to subject premises while staying temporarily with Ms. Messer, and Ms. Hird continued residing with him during the year before his death.

More to the point, when DHCR initially promulgated the Rent Stabilization Code provision allowing for succession rights, it did so to protect those who, in its "experience as sole administrator of residential rent regulation and adjudicator of eviction disputes, are most in need of protection against loss of their homes in a continuing housing emergency" Rent Stabilization Assn. of NY City v. Higgins, 83 NY2d 156, 170, 630 N.E.2d 626, 608 N.Y.S.2d 930 [1993]. It would run counter to the spirit and substance of this provision to find that Mr. Zinn was required to sacrifice his own health and safety so as to ensure that Ms. Hird could remain in their family home when he passed.

V. Conclusion

The Petition is DISMISSED as it inaccurately describes Respondent Josiane Hird as a licensee whose right to possess the subject premises expired upon the death of Philip Zinn. Ms. Hird has succession rights to the subject premises as provided by Rent Stabilization Code § 2523.5[b][1] and Public Housing Law § 14[4][a].

This is the decision and order of the court, which will be delivered to the parties via posting on NYSCEF. The parties may retrieve their trial exhibits from Room 1164A at 111 Centre Street. Failure to retrieve the exhibits within thirty days of the issuance of this Decision and Order subjects them to possible disposal.

Date: October 31, 2025

Hon. Jason P. Vendzules

FOOTNOTES

1.   DHCR was designated as the sole administrator of of rent regulated apartments in New York in 1983 (see Omnibus Housing Act, L.1983, ch. 403, § 3) and in 1985 the legislature granted DHCR authority to amend the Rent Stabilization Code. (see, L.1985, ch. 888, § 2).

2.   There is a credible argument that the date of vacatur was in October 2021, when Mr. Zinn relocated to Ms. Messer's apartment. If so, the one-year co-residency period would be from October 2020 to October 2021. However Respondent, in both her answer and the post-trial memorandum submitted, argues that Mr. Zinn's relocation date was the day he died.

3.   Luis Ferré-Sadurní and Shawn Hubler, 'A Momentous Day': New York and California Lift Most Virus Restrictions, NY Times, June 15, 2021, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/nyregion/coronavirus-restrictions.html.

4.    Chrysafis v. Marks, 549 U.S. ---, 141 S.Ct. 2482 [2021].

5.   James Barron, It's a Day of Firsts in N.Y.C Schools, and Here, September 13, 2021, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/nyregion/first-day-school-nyc.html.

6.   Julie Bosman and Lauren Letherby, U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Surpasses 700,000 Despite Wide Availability of Vaccines, October 1, 2021 (Updated November 1, 2021), retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/us-covid-deaths-700k.html.

Jason P. Vendzules, J.