LEAKY EVIDENCE, UNPLUGGED

In Gimelfarb v. Cooperman, landlord, Daniel Perla, and Terrianne Cooperman, an upstairs neighbor, were sued for water damage caused to Yelena Gimelfarb's apartment.

Cooperman denied the allegation that she had intentionally allowed her bathtub to overflow, and countered that the leak was due to the building's faulty plumbing.

When Cooperman tried to provide the court with evidence supporting her position, she was prevented from doing so due to a July 2006 court order (issued in the context of a nonpayment case) which provided that any apartment-related problems in Cooperman's space had been remedied.

After the Queens County Civil Court found Cooperman couldn't introduce the leak-related evidence, and awarded Gimelfarb $1,517.25, Cooperman appealed to the Appellate Term, Second Department, which thought Cooperman's ability to present a defense had been wrongfully impeded.

The issue in the nonpayment case was whether plumbing problems in Copperman's apartment had been resolved by July 2006, while the dispute in Gimelfarb's lawsuit was whether there were any water problems in February 2006 that might have caused the leaks which impacted Gimelfarb's unit.

As a result of that error, the AT2 sent the case back for a new trial.

Clearly, Cooperman wasn't about to have her defense watered down.

For a copy the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Gimelfarb v. Cooperman