JASPER AND NANCY JAMES v. BERNARD AND LENANN HILL

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0972-05T30972-05T3

JASPER AND NANCY JAMES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BERNARD AND LENANN HILL,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________________________________________

 

Submitted May 16, 2006 - Decided October 24, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and R. B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Passaic County, LT-6840-05.

Jasper and Nancy James, appellants pro se.

Respondents have not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs, Jasper and Nancy James (collectively "the landlord"), appeal pro se from the dismissal of their complaint in a summary dispossess action in landlord tenant court. We affirm.

The tenants are defendants Lenann and Bernard Hill, who also appeared pro se in court. The Hills testified they gave the landlord notice on or before August 1, 2005, that they were terminating their month-to-month tenancy and that they vacated the premises before August 31, 2005. Plaintiff, Jasper James, testified that as of the date of the trial, September 27, 2005, the tenants still had not fully vacated the premises.

The judge accepted the testimony of the tenants and rejected the testimony given by the landlord. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint.

On appeal, the landlord contends the tenants lied in court. Among other things, the landlord contends the tenants left a large accumulation of household goods in the apartment and that he had to expend substantial effort and money to clean, disinfect and deodorize the premises. Mr. James also testified that the floors and windows had to be cleaned; that the tenants had tampered with or removed security bars on the windows, carbon monoxide alarms and smoke detectors; and that they had failed to return the mailbox key.

The judge accepted the tenants' assertion that they had in fact vacated the premises in August and rejected the landlord's assertion that rent for the month of September was due and owing. Those determinations made by the trial judge are entitled to deference from this court.

Where, as here, the findings of the trial court are based on factual determinations in which matters of credibility are involved, our appellate function is a limited one. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). Findings of a trial judge "are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Id. at 484.

We are satisfied that there was competent, reasonably credible evidence to support the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0972-05T3

October 24, 2006