MARY CWIAKALA v. HANAN FARAG, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0675-04T50675-04T5

MARY CWIAKALA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HANAN FARAG and SAMA MED, LLC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________

 

Argued: November 1, 2005 - Decided February 16, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Bergen County, C-39-03.

Thomas A. Blumenthal argued the cause for appellants.

Ernest A. Villa argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendants appeal from a judgment "declar[ing] as null and void" a deed to a parcel of real property from plaintiff to defendant Hanan Farag, and reconveying the property to plaintiff. The judgment mandated the payment by plaintiff of $60,972.67 to reimburse defendants for amounts they had paid out to plaintiff or on her behalf to redeem the property after a mortgage foreclosure; to pay off another mortgage; and for taxes, a realty transfer fee, and recording.

After a bench trial, Judge Escala rendered a comprehensive, insightful written opinion in the matter. The opinion expressed the judge's findings leading to the conclusion that defendants, through Farag's efforts and those of her husband, Dr. Ashraf Shaker, had taken advantage of plaintiff. The judge found that plaintiff lacked the mental capacity to participate knowingly in the negotiations leading to a transfer of her property, that "she was obviously exploited," and that "[t]he 'deal' offered to Ms. Cwiakala by Dr. Shaker is tantamount to a swindle." Judge Escala determined that the contract was "unconscionable in the context of the then existing financial circumstances[,]" and that recision was the appropriate remedy.

All the mediate and ultimate facts found by Judge Escala are well supported by the record, i.e., the testimonial and documentary evidence. His findings are, therefore, binding on appeal. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974); Stochastic Decisions, Inc. v. DiDomenico, 236 N.J. Super. 388, 395 (App. Div. 1989), certif. denied, 121 N.J. 607 (1990); Fagliarone v. Township of North Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 40 N.J. 221 (1963).

Based on the findings made, the conclusion Judge Escala reached is unexceptionable, and the remedy he ordered is well-warranted as the appropriate result. See Rova Farms, supra, 65 N.J. at 484. The arguments advanced by defendants on appeal that the trial court erred and that the result reached was against the weight of the evidence are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0675-04T5

February 16, 2006