of a tourist home” .in Shvekh, the rental of the entire house in the instant case bears no relation to the room-by-room rental that is the hallmark of a hotel. As the majority observes, the, properties “lack some common, recognizable features of most hotels.” There is nothing to suggest the Appellants’ homes were open to the public at large' (e.g., no “vacancy” sign); the renters have to make advance reservations. See Fruchter v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hurley, 133 A.D.3d 1174, 1176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) (concluding the petitionér’s-rental of property did not fall under the definition of a hotel or bed-and-breakfast, noting the rental of entire property and lack of any “common exterior entrance”); Atkinson v. Wilt, 94 A.D.3d 1218 1220, 941 N.Y.S.2d 798 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). (<HOLDING>). As the Appellants observe: The properties
holding that an unpaved public street a short distance from the policyholders home was not part of the insured premises because it was not used in connection with the residence premises holding the homeowners advertising of his property on a vacationrental website did not transform the premises from asinglefamily residence into a tourist accommodation holding that homeowners policy excluded coverage because atv accident on private roadway in homeowners association occurred away from the insured premises holding residence means legal residence for will probate holding that homeowners did not control the premises to the extent a duly  arose for injury during a home show when homeowners had moved only a few items in and had surrendered possession for the home show