I got to sleep a bit later today, because we weren't asked to show up until 9:30. On the way to the train,
cattitude and I saw two great blue herons, one of them hunting quite close to shore, along with the more usual ducks and herring gulls and egret. I also took the time to pick up a buttered roll and my second cup of tea on the way to the courthouse, which helped.
I spent most of the morning reading. Around 12:30, I was one of 18 potential jurors called up, handed questionnaires, and sent into a room used for questioning potential jurors. The questionnaires were partly demographic, partly court-related: what neighborhood you live in, how long you've been there, what you do for a living, what your close relatives do, have you ever been on a jury, on a grand jury, sued anyone, been sued. The judge then told us that this was a landlord-tenant dispute, and the attorney for the petitioner started asking questions. Well, he did once the judge told him to stop making an opening statement and do so. The case involves a landlord who wants to evict a tenant, so his son can move into the tenant's apartment. As I understand it, the issues are (a) does the son actually intend to live there? (b) is the tenant sufficiently disabled that the law doesn't allow an eviction for this reason? and (c) is the eviction retaliation for complaints previously filed by the tenant?
After a very few questions to the group as a whole, we got a lunch break. I went back to Excellent Dumpling, where I said no to the waitress's "Same order?" (it was barely a question) and got rice cakes [aka New Year's cakes] with shrimp, and drank lots of tea. After lunch, we were questioned individually, notably about whether we rented or owned our apartments, and if the former, whether they were rent stabilized or rent controlled, or neither [1]. Various people said they would be unable to be fair to one side or the other. I said I'd do my best--but I also told them that (apparently alone among the group of us) I had been in court in a landlord-tenant dispute [2] and participated in a rent strike. I then explained that I'm not on the board of our Tenants' Association, which isn't even organized enough to have a defined membership, and said that I thought I could be fair, that just because one landlord (ours) is stupid doesn't mean they all are.
The landlord's attorney having covered most of the questions, the tenant's attorney asked only two or three, not of me. We were then told to take a ten-minute break, during which I went downstairs for caffeinated soda. (I wasn't sure I could get out, get tea, and get back in through the metal detectors in the allotted time.) We went back in, and they read the names of the four people who were
not excused from that jury. I wasn't one of them, so I went back to the main jury room and dove back into
The King's Peace. Not many pages later, the court officer told us all to come sit in front so she wouldn't need to use the microphone, then told us we were done with our jury service, and called names to hand out the papers proving we had in fact served. Keep the original, in case the court system gets confused, or you get called for a federal jury, and send a copy to your employer if they want one.
I called Cattitude with the good news; called Marvin to tell him I'll be back at work tomorrow; and went out to Brooklyn to buy basmati rice, chocolate, vanilla, and other good things at Sahadi. (Note: the current price differential between Sahadi's and Porto Rico on boxes of 25 Twinings tea bags is all of four cents.)
[1] Rent control and rent stabilization are different forms of New York State law, regulating the allowable size of rent increases and under what circumstances a landlord can evict someone.
[2] Alleged nonpayment of rent. When it got to court, they admitted that we had paid, and moved for dismissal "without prejudice", meaning that they would have the right to bring a similar suit in the future. They have not, however, done so.