Not a historical! I thought it was, from the blurb and the cover, although neither actually says, "historical".
The blurb doesn't say what era, but it starts off with the "son of a wealthy London baronet" rescuing a "homeless young man off the bitter winter streets." And then the cover - maybe especially the cover photo which is sooo very typical of other historical romances - completely persuaded my subconscious that this was a historical, maybe set in the 1800s. I see that a few others have shelved this under 'historical' too, so I wasn't the only one with the wrong impression. (Also, the 3 people who voted for it in the "Best Gay Historical Romance" list.)
Still enjoyed it very much as a modern read, but I think I might have liked it better if my mind had been in the right time period when I started. Then I wouldn't have had to pause to keep puzzling out the date - as when I realized, hmm, cars, it must be at least the early 1900s; and then later, oh, they have cell phones, I'd better move them up to present day, which meant I had to go back and reset the story in my mind each time.