{"id":160611,"date":"2022-10-09T15:34:04","date_gmt":"2022-10-09T19:34:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/?p=160611"},"modified":"2022-10-09T15:34:04","modified_gmt":"2022-10-09T19:34:04","slug":"nyc-judge-rules-polyamorous-unions-entitled-to-same-legal-protections-as-2-person-relationships","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antiguanewsroom.com\/nyc-judge-rules-polyamorous-unions-entitled-to-same-legal-protections-as-2-person-relationships\/","title":{"rendered":"NYC judge rules polyamorous unions entitled to same legal protections as 2-person relationships"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>

An opinion from\u00a0New York City\u2019s eviction court\u00a0has come down on the side of polyamorous unions.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

In the case of West 49th St., LLC v. O\u2019Neill, New York Civil Court Judge Karen May Bacdayan reportedly concluded that polyamorous relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal protection given to two-person relationships.<\/p>\n

West 49th St., LLC v. O\u2019Neill involved three individuals: Scott Anderson and Markyus O\u2019Neill, who lived together in a New York City apartment, and Anderson\u2019s husband Robert Romano, who resided elsewhere.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Anderson held the lease, and following his death, the building\u2019s owner argued that O\u2019Neill had no right to renew the lease because he was a \u201cnon-traditional family member.\u201d<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

The attorney for the property owner said that O\u2019Neill\u2019s affidavit, in which he claims\u00a0himself as a non-traditional family member<\/a>, is a \u201cfairytale.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to LGBTQ Nation, the case returns to court after further investigation of the three individuals\u2019 relationship.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

In her decision, Judge Bacdayan highlighted the importance of a previous case and asserted that the existence of a triad \u2013 no matter how they got along \u2013 should not automatically dismiss O\u2019Neill\u2019s claim to non-eviction protections.<\/p>\n