Gladstone v. Russell

Tenant asked the court to restore her to possession of a rented room after the property owner\u27s domestic partner (respondent) engaged in an illegal lockout by adding an additional lock during the tenant\u27s 18-day trip out of state. The court granted the tenant\u27s motion, finding that the respondent illegally locked out the tenant, and ordered the respondent to restore the tenant to possession. The court rejected the respondent\u27s arguments that the tenant surrendered possession by leaving the state and that restoring possession to the tenant posed an imminent threat and danger to the respondent, who shared the co-op\u27s other bedroom