The guy has a serious disconnect with reality. The judge ruled he has to get out immediately -- and he's saying he should be allowed "like" 30 days to vacate.
30 days isn't that uncommon regardless of the situation, but AFAIK, it's from the time of the initial notice. I don't know how NY courts work, but around here, before something gets ruled on by a State Supreme Court Justice, it's been dragging through lower courts a lot longer than that.
A 30-year-old man who was ordered by a judge to vacate his parents’ New York home after living rent-free for nearly a decade said Tuesday his bitter custody battle for his son led to his strained relationship with his mother and father.
Well, at 30, "nearly a decade" suggests that something else was going on from ~18-21. Was he paying rent to them, going to school elsewhere or did he maybe live on his own for a bit, knock something up, and then use the "I want my son" pity party as an excuse to move back in?
http://hollywoodlife.com/2018/05/24/who-is-michael-rotondo-sued-by-parents-evicted/He refuses to leave his parents’ home. Despite being 30, Michael Rotondo still lives with his parents — and won’t leave. Michael moved out for a brief time in his early 20s, but moved back in with dear old mom and dad after losing his job. His parents want him out for good, because he’s been there for eight years, never got another job, and doesn’t even do chores. He doesn’t pay rent or contribute to any household expenses. His broken down Volkswagen Passat has never been fixed, but instead just sits on “ramps” in their driveway. It’s gotten to the point that they just want him to move out and grow up.
Now I did move back in with my parents for a bit over a year around 20, and went to school for most of that, but actually got a decent job and was in the process of getting an apartment between semesters, so I was out again pretty quickly once I decided against finishing at DeVry. Given the opportunity, I might do something similar again, though I know a few folks who live 3-6 blocks from the local campus that would likely let me couch surf cheap enough if I was back in school.
I'm guessing the parents are also feeding him, so he really has no necessary expenses. In 8 years, he could have had a small paper route on a bicycle and saved up a few thousand. That's over 400 weeks; at even $50/week, he would have picked up $20k. That will buy a (crappy, but livable) house outright in some places.
His parents sued him for eviction. A judge at New York’s Onondaga County Supreme Court ruled on May 22 that Michael must leave his parents’ home after Mark and Christina Rotondo sued him. The Rotondos have been trying to get him out of the house since October 2017, according to a series of notes included in the court filing. The first note came from his father on February 2. It read: “After a discussion with your Mother, we have decided you must leave this house immediately. You have 14 days to vacate. You will not be allowed to return. We will take whatever actions are necessary to enforce this decision.”
Ok, so trying since October. About 6 years and change too late, IMO, but more than the 90 days the other article suggested. Then again, Fox says the original court case was in September, though maybe that allowed some options, like meeting certain criteria to avoid eviction.
Michael claims that his parents are allegedly retaliating for not allowing them to see his child before he lost custody in September 2017. It’s unclear how old his son is, but he told The New York Post that he became a father during the brief time when he didn’t live at home. He also said that he’s currently in a custody battle with his son’s mother, and that his parents’ demands for him to get a job have allegedly threatened his ability to waive court fees
SMH. Unless the mother is actively running a drug-and-escort service with the kid present, any judge preferring a total deadbeat idiot - who's determined to stay that way - for custody needs to be tarred and feathered.
Michael’s suing Best Buy for wrongful termination, claiming they fired him for refusing to work on Saturdays.
Uh, so he got canned from a crap job 8 years ago, hasn't had one since, and he's still in the process of suing them for something I personally know full well was clearly spelled out in the application last time I lived near one? (Granted, about 6-7 years before he worked there, but I doubt they changed that part.)
Now, it says they offered him $1100 to go away, which I'll concede isn't enough for deposit, first month and utility deposits on even a crappy apartment, but if he had any friends, finding one to couch surf with for a couple months at $75-100/week shouldn't be that hard. Realistically, he's been on notice since September, so plenty of time to find some sort of job and save up a bit, plus they almost certainly would have held off the current action a bit if he'd shown that much indication of wanting to make some progress. I mean, damn; I could be working the counter at the quick stop down the street by Monday. Part time, but it's still steady income and somewhat flexible hours. I might be there soon anyway; the shop isn't making anywhere near enough to set aside rent for winter, and barring some minor miracle, the owner will likely start packing it in middle of next month.