A 30-year-old man must now move out of his parents' home, a court has ordered following a legal battle.
A judge urged Michael Rotondo to move out of his family home in Camillus, near Syracuse in New York, on his own accord but the man, who represented himself, argued he was allowed to spend six more months living at his parents' home.
Supreme Court justice Donald Greenwood branded Mr Rotondo's demand "outrageous" and issued an eviction order.
The ruling comes after Christina and Mark Rotondo sued their son, who moved back home eight years ago, after repeatedly sending him formal letters asking him leave but were unsuccessful.
In one letter from 2 February, they wrote: "Michael, after a discussion with your mother, we have decided that 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."
Soon after the parents sent another note which read: "Michael Joseph Rontodo, you are hereby evicted."
However, they failed once again, so they reportedly offered their son $1,100 to "find a place to stay".
"There are jobs available even for those with a poor work history like you," they added in a note sent on 18 February. "Get one – you have to work!"
Christina and Mark Rotondo ended up going to their local court to try and evict their son but the case was referred to the state Supreme Court.
According to court documents seen by US broadcaster WSTM, Michael Rotondo defended himself, claiming for the past eight years he "has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement".
Mr Rotondo told the judge there was a "common law requirement of six-month notice to quit" before a tenant was "removed through ejectment action".
More from World
But the judge dismissed his case.
Speaking after the hearing, Mr Rotondo told WSTM: "I just wanted a reasonable amount of time to vacate, with consideration to the fact that I was not really prepared to support myself at the time of the notices."
A 30-year-old man must now move out of his parents' home, a court has ordered following a legal battle.
A judge urged Michael Rotondo to move out of his family home in Camillus, near Syracuse in New York, on his own accord but the man, who represented himself, argued he was allowed to spend six more months living at his parents' home.
Supreme Court justice Donald Greenwood branded Mr Rotondo's demand "outrageous" and issued an eviction order.
The ruling comes after Christina and Mark Rotondo sued their son, who moved back home eight years ago, after repeatedly sending him formal letters asking him leave but were unsuccessful.
In one letter from 2 February, they wrote: "Michael, after a discussion with your mother, we have decided that 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."
Soon after the parents sent another note which read: "Michael Joseph Rontodo, you are hereby evicted."
However, they failed once again, so they reportedly offered their son $1,100 to "find a place to stay".
"There are jobs available even for those with a poor work history like you," they added in a note sent on 18 February. "Get one – you have to work!"
Christina and Mark Rotondo ended up going to their local court to try and evict their son but the case was referred to the state Supreme Court.
According to court documents seen by US broadcaster WSTM, Michael Rotondo defended himself, claiming for the past eight years he "has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement".
Mr Rotondo told the judge there was a "common law requirement of six-month notice to quit" before a tenant was "removed through ejectment action".
More from World
But the judge dismissed his case.
Speaking after the hearing, Mr Rotondo told WSTM: "I just wanted a reasonable amount of time to vacate, with consideration to the fact that I was not really prepared to support myself at the time of the notices."
