In the world of high-end interior design, reputation is everything. For Susan Cordova, a designer with 25 years of experience, a single dining room table centerpiece nearly brought her business to its knees.
What began as a routine restoration project for a valued client spiraled into a dramatic courtroom battle involving botched craftsmanship, locked doors, and a bizarre demand for a written apology.
The Emotional Centerpiece
The conflict centered on a table that held significant emotional value for Susan’s client. Susan hired Richard Humphreville, a cabinet maker with 34 years in the trade, to redo the centerpiece which had been marred by water stains. The contract was signed in October, and the expectations were clear: the table needed to be pristine.
However, when Susan went to pick up the piece in January, the nightmare began.
“The wood itself was warped,” Susan testified. “If you touch the corner, it actually has movement. It’s a dining room table—someone could lean on it and a glass of wine could spill.”
Richard admitted he “thought he fixed that,” promising to cure the wood and finish the job properly. But as weeks turned into months, the professional relationship soured into a stalemate.
The Lockdown and the Police
By March, the table was still in Richard’s shop. According to Susan, Richard called her demanding more money, claiming the work took longer than anticipated. When Susan arrived the next day to retrieve the table, she found herself locked out.
In a scene rarely seen in furniture disputes, Susan was forced to call the police. Officers eventually pressured Richard to open his doors and relinquish the property. Richard, however, had a different story. He claimed he kept his doors locked because the shop was in a “bad area” full of “whack jobs,” and argued that the table was taken before the wood had time to properly “cure,” causing it to warp again.
The “Written Apology” Recording
The most eccentric twist in the case came after the police intervention. Susan presented an audio recording of a voicemail Richard left for her. In it, Richard laid out his terms for any further repairs:
A formal written apology from Susan for bringing the police to his shop.
Direct access to the client, cutting Susan out of the process entirely.
The judge was incredulous. To the court, these weren’t the actions of a professional artisan; they were the demands of someone holding a grudge over a financial dispute.
The Verdict
Judge Marilyn Milian saw through the cabinet maker’s “curing” defense. She noted that Susan had every incentive to wait for a finished product—picking up a wobbly, unfinished table served no purpose other than to ruin her standing with her client.
The Court’s Findings:
Preponderance of Evidence: The judge found Susan’s version of events more credible. The lockout was likely due to a money dispute, not “whack jobs” at the door.
The Judgment: Richard’s $730 counter-claim for extra labor was dismissed.
The Award: Susan was awarded $848, the full amount she had paid for the botched restoration.
The Aftermath
As Richard left the courtroom, he remained defiant, insisting the judge hadn’t let him state the “facts” about the timing of the wood’s curing process. Susan, meanwhile, walked away with the funds to finally get the table redone correctly, hoping to save her relationship with her client.
As Harvey Levin noted at the conclusion: “The defendant doesn’t have a clue as to why he lost this case. He made unreasonable demands… and it doesn’t bode well for his next customer.”
