Repeat to Yourself, "It's Just a Show, I Should Really Just Relax"

Its dramatic merits notwithstanding, "The People's Court" is not in fact a court of law and a woman's statements while appearing as a "plaintiff" on the show may not be later used against her in an actual legal proceeding, a Brooklyn judge has ruled.

Last April, a judicial hearing officer relied on a woman's "sworn testimony" from an appearance on "The People's Court" to determine that the woman had not lived with her recently deceased mother and therefore did not have succession rights to her apartment.

In an order released this week, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Francois A. Rivera threw out the hearing officer's findings, holding that the "People's Court" testimony was not, in fact, testimony. "'The People's Court' is not a court, body, agency, public servantor other person authorized by lawto conduct a proceedingand to administer the oath or cause it to be administered," Justice Rivera wrote in Kahn v. New York Department of Housing, 15020/09.

"The show has voluntary participants, who are not actors, who speak about disputes on a stage that resembles a court. The words or statements uttered by these participants are not testimony. They are neither sworn nor reliable."

Brooklynite Ellen Kahn initiated the Article 78 proceeding to contest the ruling by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development hearing officer that she did not qualify for succession rights to her late mother's subsidized apartment under the state's Mitchell-Lama Law.

In opposing the petition, the city submitted a DVD of an appearance by Ms. Kahn on "The People's Court," the iconic daytime television show in which parties argue actual small-claims disputes before formerjudges.

In her episode, Ms. Kahn ...