Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3991-11T1
06-18-2014
ELIE AND MARIE VALERIUS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LYNETTE AND DUNSTON THOMAS, Defendant-Respondent.
Elie and Marie Valerius, appellants pro se. Respondents have not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Essex County, Docket No. SC-0144-12.
Elie and Marie Valerius, appellants pro se.
Respondents have not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
In this landlord-tenant matter, plaintiffs-landlords Elie and Marie Valerius appeal from the March 16, 2012 order, which denied their motion for reconsideration of the final judgment entered in favor of defendants-tenants Lynette and Dunston Thomas following a trial on February 15, 2013. The judgment required plaintiffs to return defendants' security deposit.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants for breaching the lease by failing to give a thirty-day notice prior to vacating the apartment. Defendants vacated the apartment after a fire in the building, which was the third fire that occurred during defendants' tenancy. Although the fire did not originate in defendants' apartment, their young children were afraid to return to the building after the fire.
In light of the fire, the judge held that balancing the equities warranted denial of relief to plaintiffs and the return of defendants' security deposit. The judge did not double the amount, as required by N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1, or order payment of interest, as required by N.J.S.A. 46:8-19. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that defendants should forfeit their security deposit because they provided false documents and testimony at trial.
In reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion for reconsideration, we have determined that
[r]econsideration itself is a matter within the sound discretion of the [c]ourt, to be exercised in the interest of justice[.] It is not appropriate merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court or wishes to reargue a motion, but should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1)We will not disturb a trial judge's denial of a motion for reconsideration absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 289.
the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence.
[Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).]
Plaintiffs have not established that the judge based his decision on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis or did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence. Plaintiffs merely disagree with the judge's decision, which is no reason to reverse it.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION