Today on The People's Court, there were only two cases, but they were doozies.
The first case dealt with a woman who had rented an apartment from another woman. The renter was from Atlanta and had just moved to New York and had seen the ad on Craigslist, showed up first that morning and then there were several other girls that had shown up and she had to put down a desposit in case she was picked and sign an agreement (which the defendant didn't give her a copy of, but it wasn't a lease). She thought this was going to be a roommate situation with the two of them sharing a two-bedroom apartment. Ultimately, the defendant picked the plantiff for the apartment.
The plantiff moved in on a weekend and right away noticed the defendant seemed a little strange or shady. First of all, the defendant told the plantiff that she was not supposed to be moving in on the weekend and she had to walk into the building several fee in front of the defendant and pretend she didn't know her in front of the doorman.
Second, the plantiff told the defendant to not be at the apartment during the hours of 9-5. Since the plantiff worked as an intern during those hours, it was not a problem. The plantiff began to believe that the defendant was running a business as a hololist healer out of the apartment and even that she was not living there.
Ultimately, the 9-5 turned into 7-10 nights as well as weekends. At first the plantiff oblidged, but then she told the defendant that since she was paying rent, she had a right to be there. Also, the plantiff found that a video camera on the wall in the commons area of the apartment. She asked the defendant if she was being recorded, because if she was, she needed to know. This is what prompted the plantiff to moved out. I don't recall for sure, but I think she was suing for moving expenses. The amount of her suit was about $1940.
The defendant said the plantiff was lying about signing a lease. The judge told her that she didn't say she signed a lease. She said she signed an agreement. The defendant accused the plantiff of spreading lies to the co-op management about the defendant having sublet the apartment to the plantiff. The defendant denied it was a lease repeatedly, calling it a roommate agreement, saying that she was told by the coop she didn't need permission to have a roommate and that her lawyer drew it up and said it would be OK.
The judge kept telling her it was a lease, even though she denied it and the judge read a letter where the Board of Directors for the coop had told her they learned she had been illegally subletting the aparment, and if I understand it correctly, she had even been doing it before. The judge told her that her lawyer probably told her it wouldn't fly in court. It's a lease, no matter what you call it.
Also, the plantiff had a witness, a woman from Paris, who had given her $800 in a deposit, but the defendant wanted even more deposit money for other things like international call, etc, which the witness said she didn't need to make because her mother was already over here. Then the witness had backed out because the defendant was changing the terms. She found out about the plantiff through the doorman, since she was in a similar situation with the defendant. The witness had just sued the defendant the day before for failing to return her deposit.
The judge said the defendant was either cagey or not all here and she prefers to think the defendant is cagey because then she doesn't have to worry whether she is going to trip over her own feet. So, she was cagey, knew what she was doing wasn't right. Also the defendant had a $5000 countersuit against the plantiff for not fulfilling the agreement.
The judge ultimately believed the plantiff and said she had cause to leave therefore, and thus awarded the defendant 0 on the countersuit and the plantiff the full amount on the initial suit.
The second case was the case of 'Safe Sink'. The plantiff had several of her girlfriends over, including the defendant and also a could of guys. They were playing cards and sitting around talking. At some point, the defendant gets up to use the bathroom and the others hadn't really noticed, until there was this loud thud and they ran to the bathroom and there was the defendant, her finger split open, the sink had been completely detacted from the wall and the plumming and the bathroom was flooding. Her panties were around one ankle, but her sweatpants were pulled up. She was in shock. Also there was a guy in there and he was in shock too.
The judge asked her if anyone had been drinking, and the plantiff said she was serving wine. then the judge asks her if anyone had been drinking heavily, and the plantiff responds, "No, no one was in a coma." I just busted out laughing when she said that. The judge explained to her there is a large continuum between being in a coma and drinking heavily and having a glass of wine.
The defendant's defense was that the guy had not been in the bathroom, but had been waiting outside and that she had just been leaning on the sink and reaching down to scrath her leg. Also she claimed that the sink was faulty. She claimed the guy was outside and had knocked on the door asking what happened when the sink broke. The judge seemed a bit embarrassed to, but had to ask how much she weighs since it is relevent. She said 180.
The plantiff said the defendant and this guy she had just met thirty minutes earlier went into the bathroom to have sex. When the judge asked what the defendant had told her happened, she said the defendant didn't tell her anything, that she just ran out without her shoes on screaming "My finger. My finger. My finger. My finger." The plantiff was mainly concerned about getting towels to clean it up. She asked the guy and he said she had whisper to him to come into the bathroom with her and she'd do a dance for him. The defendant had been an exotic dancer.
The plantiff had said the defendant ran off without her shoes and went to the hospital and didn't get them until later. The defendant said she had gone downstairs and the firefighters and abulance had been called and the EMSes wouldn't let her go up and get the shoes, due to her injuries. The defendant though she left so quickly because she was guilty.
Also the defendant said she has a lawsuit against the apartment for the faulty sink causing her injuries. The judge asked her where it was pending and she didn't understand the question and when the judge explained it to her, she said her lawyer was going to file it (So, in other words, it hasn't been filed yet.) The judge asked her whether she was afraid the guy would resurface and tear her to shreads in the case.
The judge asked her why the guy would lie to incriminate himself. Why would he just not said, "I don't know what happened? I just knocked on the door." The defendant didn't know. The just said that since his story was self-incriminating, it was more believable. also the defendant was skeptical about him having told the plantiff this. He wasn't there to testify. The plantiff did however have another witness to corroborate the panties around the ankle and sweatpants pulled up.
Also, the defendant had a boyfriend and she told the plantiff to ask him for the money since he deals with the money. So she tries to call him through his parents and tells them everything and they are kind of shocked, but not taking sides. The defendant calls the plantiff and is furious with her for telling his parents that.
Also the plantiff plays a tape (I am not sure whether this is from that or another phonecall) where the defendant leaves a message trying to work something out with the plantiff on paying for the damages. The judge thinks this incriminates the defendant, since if it weren't her fault, wh would she offer to pay?
The judge did not believe that the act of leaning against the sink would be enough to rip it off. The plantiff had a before photo (not an after photo though since it was fixed so fast) that showed several connections to the wall. Even if it were faulty, the judge thought it might separate, but not be totally come off. She didn't even think that 200 pounds would be enough. She thought the 200 pounds from the defendant doing her lapdance on the sink along with another 200 pounds from the guy would have caused it to separate.
The damage is several, not just to the plantiff's apartment, but to two others totalling $4200 or so. The judge decides with the witness, the guy making an incriminating admission and the phonecall offering to pay, the plantiff prevails for the full amount. and as the judge stands up and bangs her gaven and says "Judgement plaintive for $X" she adds, "Next time, do it on your own sink".
science
