In Matter of A* Ave. A*. LP v DF, DF was living as subtenant in an apartment that was originally secured for her by a nonprofit organization called Services for the Underserved (SUS). SUS assists people in finding housing and provides mental health support. While DF was living in an apartment that was supposedly rent-stabilized, the landlord argued that it wasn't subject to those rules because DF's occupancy rights were subordinate to that of the charitable institution, SUS, which put her in the unit.
When the landlord took legal action to remove DF from the apartment, SUS did not defend against the lawsuit. And because DF was not represented, the court appointed a guardian to look after her interests, but that guardian did not secure a lawyer for her and did not properly assist her during the trial. Additionally, DF was confused during the trial and did not fully understand what was happening. The trial was very short—about 30 minutes—and resulted in a decision in the landlord's favor.
Later, DF got legal representation through the Legal Aid Society, which asked the court to annul the eviction order, arguing that DF had not been given a fair chance to defend herself. The Civil Court and the Appellate Term, First Department, both declined that request, finding that because she had appeared at the trial, she was not entitled to special post-trial relief.
On appeal, however, the Appellate Division, First Department, ruled in DF’s favor. It found that the lower courts should have reversed the eviction determination because DF had been unrepresented, confused, and not properly assisted by her court-appointed guardian. The AD1 was of the view that the "interests of justice" required a new trial, since DF had not been given a fair opportunity to defend herself. As a result, the case was sent back to the Civil Court for a do-over.
Let’s slap an ‘oops’ sticker on that and try that again!
# # #
DECISION