A New York couple took an unprecedented step: they petitioned the court to require their adult son to move out of their home. Michael Rotondo, 30, had been living with his parents—and depending on them financially—for eight years when his parents brought the issue to court in spring 2018, resulting in widespread media attention.
A Home Built on an Unwritten Agreement
Michael Rotondo returned to his parents’ home in Camillus, New York, roughly eight years before the filing, after leaving a job in Syracuse.
In his own motion to dismiss the case—a filing cited by news reports from CNY Central—Rotondo argued that he had never been expected to pay rent, contribute to household expenses, or help with chores, describing the arrangement as an unwritten agreement between himself and his parents rather than a formal contract.
That agreement changed in the fall of 2017, when the family, per NPR’s reporting, began having informal discussions with Michael about the possibility of him relocating elsewhere. The conversations bore no fruit, and in early 2018, his parents decided that informal discussion was no longer sufficient.
Written Notices From the Family
On February 2, 2018, Christina and Mark Rotondo sent their son, for the first of five times, a written notice requesting that he relocate. According to the note, published by CNN, the son had 14 days to leave and would not be permitted to return.
Days before that deadline passed, his parents retained the services of attorney Anthony Adorante and sent him a second notice on February 13, giving the son a further 30 days to move out—and setting a final deadline of March 15.
The letters contained more than just requests. Throughout the notices, his parents offered to help him find a new place to live and even pitched in $1,100 to help him get set up.
One letter suggested he look for work despite his spotty employment history, while another requested that he either remove his unused car from the driveway or have it repaired.
When March 15 rolled around and Michael Rotondo still declined to relocate, his parents realized that neither reasoning nor financial support would convince him to move on his own.
From the Kitchen Table to the Courthouse
In April 2018, Christina and Mark Rotondo visited their local town court to ask the judge there to begin relocation proceedings via the standard local process.
Upon doing so, the couple learned that because Michael Rotondo was not a traditional tenant but rather a family member, this particular court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Because of this, Christina and Mark Rotondo needed to take the issue to the New York State Supreme Court.
Their attorney filed the Rotondos’ case with the Onondaga County Supreme Court outside of Syracuse on May 7. As per Syracuse.com’s reporting, the attorney explained that the couple had exhausted all available options to convince their son to leave voluntarily.
Michael Rotondo, for his part, filed a motion to dismiss the case, which he presented to the court on his own behalf without an attorney. He argued that he was entitled to six months’ notice under New York law, citing a 2006 court case, Kosa v. Legg, in support of his argument.
He further argued that he had behaved responsibly, had never intentionally inconvenienced his parents, and had never been asked to pay rent or assist with household chores.
Thirty Minutes Before a Judge
The case was heard by New York State Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood on May 22, 2018. As a self-represented litigant, Rotondo spoke directly to the judge, asking for six months to find a new place to live and suggesting, at one point, that he could be out in three months’ time.
His arguments did little to persuade Greenwood, who stated, per ABC News, “I want you out of that household.” Specifically, the judge ruled that Christina and Mark Rotondo, as the property’s owners, were legally permitted to dictate who occupied their home.
Rotondo called the ruling “outrageous,” and said he intended to appeal the decision. Speaking to reporters shortly thereafter, Rotondo stated he had no idea where he would go and was still considering his options.
Further, Greenwood asked local human services to check on the wellbeing of the family in the wake of the hearing. Throughout the proceedings, Rotondo’s parents had largely kept silent, aside from their notices to Michael and statements made by their attorney.
The Final Departure and Aftermath
Michael Rotondo honored the court’s ruling, though he did so with little time to spare. He left the Camillus home for the final time roughly four hours before the 12 p.m. deadline on June 1—only to return briefly to retrieve a few remaining items before departing with about two and a half hours to spare.
His car needed a jump start before he could leave; upon pulling away from the house for the final time, he gave a brief honk of the horn in the direction of the waiting journalist.
Speaking to reporters that day, Rotondo said he did not plan to maintain a relationship with his parents going forward, even as he continued to disagree with the court’s ruling.
The highly-publicized dispute garnered international media attention, as it involved an unusual use of the court system to address a familial disagreement.
Meanwhile, Rotondo was also involved in a separate civil matter regarding his former employment at Best Buy, as per NPR’s reporting, following a dispute over working Saturdays. The case against his parents was unrelated but nonetheless added to a particularly trying period for Michael Rotondo.
Ultimately, Rotondo’s dispute with his parents was a deeply personal one that hinged on a comparatively straightforward property law technicality. By the beginning of June 2018, Michael Rotondo had departed the Camillus home for good.
Sources
NPR – Judge Backs N.Y. Parents