Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4275-16T3
04-18-2018
PARVIN REMOLINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHUMAILA KASHIF, KASHIF ZIA, ASIF ZIA and MOHAMMAD ZIA BASHAR, Defendants-Respondents.
Parvin Remolina, appellant pro se. Shumaila Kashif, Kashif Zia, Asif Zia and Mohammad Zia Bashar, respondents pro se.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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 Fisher and Fasciale. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-1662-16. Parvin Remolina, appellant pro se. Shumaila Kashif, Kashif Zia, Asif Zia and Mohammad Zia Bashar, respondents pro se. PER CURIAM
This is a residential landlord-tenant property damage case. Plaintiff, who leased the premises to defendants, appeals from a May 1, 2017 judgment of no cause of action entered after a bench trial. Judge Thomas J. Walsh tried the case, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and determined that without expert testimony, there existed insufficient proof to warrant a judgment in plaintiff's favor.
The May 1, 2017 order specifies the matter was tried to completion by a jury. Further review of the record confirms Judge Walsh conducted a bench trial. --------
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge failed "to find a cause of action based on a landlord tenant breach of contract as it pertains to normal 'wear and tear' versus destruction of real property." Plaintiff did not produce expert testimony addressing the cause of the alleged property damage or the reasonable costs associated with repairs. Although defendants claimed plaintiff failed to return their security deposit, defendants did not file a counterclaim or cross-appeal.
We conclude that plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the clear and concise reasons expressed by Judge Walsh. We add the following brief remarks.
The standard of review of judgments or orders entered after bench trials is well settled. The findings of the trial judge are binding on appeal if they are supported by "adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We review a "trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts" de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Applying this standard, we see no error.
Judge Walsh found that there existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. But he concluded plaintiff failed to produce expert testimony as to the alleged property damage. The judge acknowledged that without that opinion testimony, he would be unable to determine the basis for the alleged repairs and the reasonable costs associated with any repair work in the premises. We have no reasons to disturb Judge Walsh's findings and conclusions.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION