New Trial Needed on Landlord's Illegal Alterations Claim

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for breaching the "no alterations" clause of his lease. At trial, tenant objected to landlord's testimony concerning whether landlord had consented to tenant's apartment alterations. Tenant claimed that landlord's attorney was asking leading questions. The court ruled for tenant and excluded this testimony. The court then dismissed the case, finding that landlord failed to prove his claim. Landlord appealed. The appeals court ruled for landlord and sent the case back for a new trial. Although some questions may have been leading, there was no jury and no harm done to tenant's case. The trial court should have permitted the questions asked by landlord's attorney since they related to introductory matters and moved landlord's witness quickly to more substantive issues.

Mengoni v. Lorelli: NYLJ, 5/1/09, p. 37, col. 1 (App. T. 1 Dept.; McKeon, PJ, Schoenfeld, JJ)