JOSEPH A. PINTO v. HOBOKEN SCHOOLHOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0083-05T20083-05T2

JOSEPH A. PINTO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HOBOKEN SCHOOLHOUSE

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________

 

Submitted September 19, 2006 - Decided October 10, 2006

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-3661-03.

Victor K. Brown, attorney for appellant.

The Stern Law Firm, attorneys for respondent (John J. Stern, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Joseph A. Pinto, appeals from an order of judgment entered in the Law Division on June 26, 2005, following a three-day bench trial that awarded plaintiff $8,509.74 on his claim for overpayment of condominium maintenance fees against defendant, Hoboken Schoolhouse Condominium Association, together with $3,428.20 attorney's fees. Plaintiff contends that the trial judge erred in determining the amount of his overpayment of condominium maintenance fees, asserting that he is entitled to a judgment in the amount of $28,337.33, together with attorney's fees.

Specifically, plaintiff argues:

POINT I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOCATING CERTAIN CONDOMINIUM EXPENSES TO THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

POINT II.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S PERCENTAGE INTEREST IN THE MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE BASED ON ACTUAL EXPENDITURES RATHER THAN BUDGETED MAINTENANCE.

Reviewing courts "'do not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice . . . . '" Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of No. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963)). Consequently, "the appellate court should exercise its original fact finding jurisdiction sparingly and in none but a clear case where there is no doubt about the matter." Rova Farms Resort, Inc., supra, 65 N.J. at 484. However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).

After carefully considering the issues raised in light of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Theemling in his oral decision of May 2, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0083-05T2

 

October 10, 2006


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.