In 1987, what has come to be known as the "family exception" as to who may be deemed a licensee for summary eviction purposes was expanded in Minors v Tyler (137 Misc 2d 505 [1987]). In that case, the petitioner was the titled owner of a one-family home in which he lived with the respondent as husband and wife for a number of years, though the parties never legally married. Eventually, petitioner sought to have the respondent evicted as a licensee. Citing Rosenstiel and other cases, the court denied the petitioner's motion for summary judgment holding that the respondent under these circumstances was not a licensee.
In Nagle v Di Paola (134 Misc 2d 753 [1987]), the court was asked to consider whether petitioner, who owned what became the family home prior to his marriage to the respondents' mother, who in turn had custody of her two children, aged 15 and 17 from a prior marriage, could summarily evict his stepchildren as licensees whose licenses he claimed to have revoked. The court held that the stepchildren were not licensees because their right to reside in the home flowed not from the petitioner's permission but from their relationship to their mother who was married to the petitioner.
In 1989 the Court of Appeals decided Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co. (74 NY2d 201 [1989]). In construing the meaning of the statutory term "family" for purposes of determining succession rights to a rent-controlled apartment the Court stated: