se in which the plaintiff sought compensation for domestic services performed, and upon an oral contract for maintenance and support, despite the absence of a marriage. It had nothing to do with an eviction from the family residence or summary proceedings under RPAPL 713.
In any event, in 2003 DeJesus v Rodriguez (196 Misc 2d 881 [2003]) was decided. In that case the titled petitioner sought to evict his former girlfriend and their two children, aged five and eight years, as licensees, despite the petitioner and respondent having resided together in what was the family home for 10 years. The court held that "[m]odern life requires the courts to recognize that unmarried couples acquire rights similar to married occupants as it affects continued occupancy of the home they have shared" and further on in its [*6]decision stated "[w]hile respondent does not have the legal status of a wife, there is no question that she is more than a licensee" (id. at 885). In 2006 the concept that RPAPL 713 (7) was not intended to allow family members to summarily evict each other was further made clear in Williams v Williams (13 Misc 3d 395 [2006]). In that case a grandmother was not permitted to maintain a licensee proceeding against her twin 24-year-old grandchildren who had resided with her since they were 11 years old. After reviewing the case law involving licensee proceedings against various types of family members, the court held: