Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0752-15T2
11-10-2016
GEORGY PETKOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSEPH PICCO, Defendant-Respondent.
Mehr LaFrance & Williams, attorneys for appellant (Mark Williams, on the brief). Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. DC-4166-15. Mehr LaFrance & Williams, attorneys for appellant (Mark Williams, on the brief). Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a September 22, 2015 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the June 25, 2015 dismissal of his ejectment complaint. We dismiss.
Plaintiff bought a condominium in Long Branch through a sheriff's foreclosure sale. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, the condominium had been rented to defendant by the son of the actual owners. Plaintiff commenced an action for ejectment, which was tried on June 9, 2015. On June 25, 2015, the trial judge dismissed the complaint after finding defendant had a valid residential lease permitting his tenancy to continue. The lease term was from November 1, 2014, until October 31, 2015.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial judge erred because the lease was not between the prior owners of the townhouse and defendant but between the son of the prior owners and defendant. Plaintiff asserts defendant is not a bona fide tenant and is therefore not entitled to insulation from eviction by virtue of the lease.
Because the lease termination date of October 31, 2015, had already passed, we inquired of plaintiff's counsel as to the status of the tenancy. On October 27, 2016, we were advised the lease for the townhouse was not renewed or extended and defendant vacated the premises in November 2015.
"Issues that have been rendered moot by subsequent developments render legal issues abstract and outside the proper realm of courts." In re City of Plainfield's Park-Madison Site, 372 N.J. Super. 544, 550, (App. Div.), certif. denied, 182 N.J. 630 (2005) (citations omitted). Accordingly, courts "will not decide a case if the issues are hypothetical, a judgment cannot grant effective relief, or there is no concrete adversity of interest between the parties." Advance Elec. Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Twp. Bd. of Educ., 351 N.J. Super. 160, 166, (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 364 (2002) (citing Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1976). Because defendant vacated the leased premises in November 2015, we conclude that the appeal is moot.
Dismissed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION