Ida Mae Jones, an 85-year old, rent-controlled tenant of a Manhattan apartment, lost her battle to keep her home after an appellate court concluded that she had failed to demonstrate that the unit was her primary residence.
Apparently, Ida Mae's documentation -- tax returns, utility bills and saving account statements -- listed an address in Savannah, Georgia. In addition, most of her furniture had been removed from the unit, she was rarely seen at the premises, and two of her relatives (a nephew and cousin) occupied the apartment in her absence.
Ida Mae disputed that the unit was not her principal or primary residence but, for some reason, failed to call the apartment's occupants -- the nephew and cousin -- to testify at trial. Since they had a "strong interest" in the outcome of the case, the New York County Ciivil Court and the Appellate Term, First Department, were of the opinion that the absence of these witnesses reflected unfavorably on the tenant's position.
At the AT1, a lone dissenter, Justice Douglas E. McKeon, felt the case's outcome was in error since the trial court did not "warn" the tenant of the possibility that it would rule unfavorably if her relatives did not testify. By omitting that advance notice, the dissenter believed that the tenant was denied "the opporunity to adjust her trial strategy ... or to explain her failure to call the two witnesses ...." In sum, Justice McKeon believed that Ida Mae had been denied a fair trial.
We were unaware that judges are required to advise litigants on trial strategy. (Isn't that what attorneys are for?)
And is a "fair trial" denied whenever a jurist declines to share his/her leanings or insights with a litigant prior to a case's determination? That, in our opinion, would prove to be a completely unworkable standard.
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: 3657 Realty Co., LC v. Jones