Opinion
Argued January 31, 1983 —
Decided February 14, 1983.
Before Judges ARD, KING and McELROY.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Atlantic County.
Jack Gorny argued the cause for appellants ( Horn, Kaplan, Goldberg Gorny, attorney; Jack Gorny, on the brief).
William W. Shultz argued the cause for respondents ( Alten, Valentine, Seltzer Shultz, attorneys; William W. Shultz, on the brief).
Joseph Berman, respondent, argued the cause pro se.
Following a bench trial in the Chancery Division of the issues there joined, Judge Haines announced his findings, conclusions and determinations in an articulate and detailed opinion. This appeal eventuated from the judgment entered thereon.
We are satisfied that the findings of fact might reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the record below, and we will not disturb them. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). We are also persuaded as to the soundness of the conclusions of law of Judge Haines, and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the aforementioned opinion.
Although not controlling in this case, the New Jersey Legislature has recently enacted a statute which imposes a rebuttable presumption of unconscionability upon recreation leases under these circumstances. N.J.S.A. 46:8B-32 (effective January 17, 1980). This recent statute evinces our State's sound public policy with regard to the type of conduct found by Judge Haines in the instant case.
Affirmed.