5
testified that she was “guilty of not knowing how to legally define [her] relationship with
[Charlemagne]. We’ve been on and off together for 16 years. We have two children. He’s
more than my boyfriend but not quite my husband. I’m sorry, I don’t know the legal term to
define our relationship.”
Charlemagne testified that when he completed the rental application, he listed Rosales as
his spouse even though they were not married. He never had or signed a lease agreement or
rental agreement for the premises and never asked for an application. He moved in early
December 2020.
Pointing to “discrepancies” in the resident manager’s agreement, defendants objected to
admission of the agreement into evidence, arguing that it was a forged document and that
Rosales never signed it.
Rebuttal
Hilda De Paolo, plaintiff’s custodian of records, was called to testify. In her capacity as
custodian of records, she maintained the manager’s agreement in her regular business files.
The purported “original” signed manager’s agreement was presented to the court. After
handling and examining the document, the court noted for the record that “there are
indentations on the back from signatures, from above the– behind the signature of Jenny
Rosales” tending to indicate that a “live person” signed it. The court admitted exhibit 1 into
evidence over defense objection.
Defense moved to strike the admission of exhibit 1 pointing out inconsistencies in the
document. The court declined to do so stating that it had been identified and authenticated, but
noted that, based on defense argument, it would take a look at it, and determine what weight to
give it.
Trial Court’s Ruling
The court found that Defendant Rosales did not have an independent right of possession
of the unit that was separate and apart from the “Resident Manager’s Agreement” and her right
to occupancy of the premises was dependent upon her continuation of her employment as the
resident manager. “The parties’ agreement clearly stated that Defendant Rosales’ occupancy
was dependent upon the continuation of the employer-employee relationship and that when the