Why Do You Care? (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

I think I should clarify and make this without caveat.

I apologize for my behavior yesterday. There really isn't any reason for name-calling or personal insults on the board. I thought I was calling out a tactic that I resented, and sought to bring a personal grievance about the tactic to a broader audience. In doing so, I vilified the person doing it, questioned his motive, and that's where the apology comes from.

So that's a fully-owned apology. I just don't see how I helped the situation at hand in the least yesterday, and I'm sorry.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I think I should clarify and make this without caveat.

I apologize for my behavior yesterday. There really isn't any reason for name-calling or personal insults on the board. I thought I was calling out a tactic that I resented, and sought to bring a personal grievance about the tactic to a broader audience. In doing so, I vilified the person doing it, questioned his motive, and that's where the apology comes from.

So that's a fully-owned apology. I just don't see how I helped the situation at hand in the least yesterday, and I'm sorry.

Thank you. I apologize for my personal statements. They were uncalled for.

 

[djmich]

Honestly it’s great that you guys hugged it out, but I don’t really care.

 

[Rich Conway]

Honestly it’s great that you guys hugged it out, but I don’t really care.

Why don't you care?

 

[McBokonon]

I regret nothing.

 

[quick-hands]

this is why all those guys who quit the psf are dumb. this thread is gold.

 

[BladeRunner]

I'm so outraged that people care about things!!!! BladeRunner Mad!!! BladeRunner SMASH!!!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I hope I'm not thwarting the intentions of the board owner and moderators with this reply. I think in the "spirit of good discussion" that this is an appropriate post, but of course I could be treading where I should not be.

From the original closed thread-

If you can't see the difference and how it might lead to arrangements among simple friends bilking landlords for rent, then I don't see the point in taking much time.

If Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co., 74 NY2d 201 (1989) is the "settled law", I don't see how this judge's decision makes that any more likely than what already exist. At almos the end-

Contrary to all of these arguments, we conclude that the term family, as used in 9 N.Y.CRR 2204.6 (d), should not be rigidly restricted to those people who have formalized their relationship by obtaining, for instance, a marriage certificate or an adoption order. 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. In the context of eviction, a more realistic, and certainly equally valid, view of a family includes two adult lifetime partners whose relationship is long term and characterized by an emotional and financial commitment and interdependence. This view comports both with our society's traditional concept of "family" and with the expectations of individuals who live in such nuclear units (see also, 829 Seventh Ave. Co. v Reider, 67 N.Y.2d 930, 931-932 [interpreting 9 N.Y.CRR 2204.6 (d)'s additional "living with" requirement to mean living with the named tenant "in a family unit, which in turn connotes an arrangement, whatever its duration, bearing some indicia of permanence or continuity" (emphasis supplied)]). In fact, Webster's Dictionary defines "family" first as "a group of people united by certain convictions or common affiliation" (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 448 [1984]; see, Ballantine's Law Dictionary 456 [3d ed 1969] ["family" defined as "(p)rimarily, the collective body of persons who live in one house and under one head or management"]; Black's Law Dictionary 543 [Special Deluxe 5th ed 1979]). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in using the term "family," the Legislature intended to extend protection to those who reside in households having all of the normal familial characteristics. Appellant Braschi should therefore be afforded the opportunity to prove that he and Blanchard had such a household.

I also think that if this the law, if this current case goes through appeals and a decision is using the same type of analysis in 2022 vs 1989 that the "two" in "view of a family includes two adult lifetime partners whose relationship is long term and characterized by an emotional and financial commitment and interdependence" would not be a stumbling block. That is, I think text such as...

"imagine a family of three. A husband, a wife, and an adult child. We would certainly hold that the adult child was 'family' under this statute if both parents died at the same time. So, the word 'two' in the 1989 cannot be some limiting condition."​

...fits within that framework.

So yes, I can see various differences between a couple and a polyamorous relationship. Especially if the government is dragged into untangling the relationship when it dissolves. I can see (and I think I agree) that creating a "family" "out of thin air" shouldn't be imposed on third parties like it is here. But I don't see how the judge in the Fox News case is wrong when reading that decision. The "settled law" seems to favor an expansive definition of "family", or at least "the opportunity to prove" that the household functioned as a "family". The legislature didn't intend gay marriage families when this was drafted post WWII, but they fit in the framework per the above. I think the same would be true with polyamorous relationships, or just two long term friends with a "emotional and financial commitment and interdependence".

Again, forgive me if posting this was not desired after locking the other thread.

 

[The Z Machine]

That's Richard freaking Dawson!

And the survey says, "you're dead."

#wutangisforthechildren