ROSA BARRECA et al. v. NEELAM SINGH

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3742-05T23742-05T2

ROSA BARRECA and

NEELAM SINGH,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

MICHAEL R. SOLLECITO,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

 

Submitted October 24, 2006 - Decided November 6, 2006

Before Judges Skillman and Lisa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Hudson County, Docket No. SC-003283-05.

Michael R. Sollecito, appellant, pro se.

Rosa Barreca and Neelam Singh, respondents, pro se.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a final judgment of the Special Civil Part awarding plaintiffs $1477. The judgment represents a $1550 security deposit plaintiffs gave defendant for an apartment rental, less the $94 cost of replacing a stove hood that the court found to have been properly deducted from the deposit, plus court costs.

Defendant presents the following arguments in support of his appeal:

THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT KNOWN AS THE RESIDENTIAL LEASE. THE PLAINTIFFS' ACTIONS DURING THEIR TENANCY WERE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THIS CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. A PROPOSAL TO REDRESS BREACHES OF CONTRACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT AND IS NOT BINDING UNTIL ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE AGREED TO BY ALL PARTIES OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT. PHYSICAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES DUE TO A FIXTURE WHICH SUSTAINED SEVERE DAMAGE IN THE LEASED PREMISES WHERE THE PLAINTIFFS RESIDED, WERE NOT CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT. BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE PRINCIPLE AND THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE EVIDENCE WEIGHED SUBSTANTIALLY IN FAVOR OF ATTRIBUTING LIABILITY TO THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE.

We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment in plaintiffs' favor substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Charles' February 10, 2006, oral opinion. We add the following supplemental comments.

Although the lease plaintiffs entered into provided that "[l]essee[s] agrees that no signs shall be placed or painting done on or about the leased premises by Lessee or at his direction without the prior written consent of Lessor," such an agreement does not "disable [the parties] from amending, supplementing or replacing the contract by a later agreement made orally or by conduct objectively manifesting a new understanding." Lewis v. Travelers Ins. Co., 51 N.J. 244, 253 (1968); see also Headley v. Cavileer, 82 N.J.L. 635, 637-39 (E. & A. 1912); Sodora v. Sodora, 338 N.J. Super. 308, 312 (Ch. Div. 2000).

"[I]n a non-jury case, . . . the findings on which [the judgment] is based should not be disturbed unless ' . . . they are so wholly unsupportable as to result in a denial of justice.' . . . Findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investor Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974) (quoting Greenfield v. Dusseault, 60 N.J. Super. 436, 444 (App. Div. 1960), aff'd o.b., 33 N.J. 78 (1960)). Judge Charles found that the "[defendant] agreed that the plaintiffs could paint the apartment a different color upon the condition that plaintiff . . . would repaint the entire apartment upon their surrender and vacation of same, upon the further condition that such an obligation to repaint would be predicated upon defendant's giving them or making prior payment of $150 towards the paint to do such repainting." This finding is adequately supported by plaintiff Barreca's testimony that she "agreed that if [defendant] were to give me that $150 then I would paint the entire apartment back to white before we left."

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3742-05T2

November 6, 2006