THERESA M. RUSSO v. ZOE AJJAHNON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5256-04T35256-04T3

THERESA M. RUSSO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ZOE AJJAHNON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 21, 2006 - Decided April 5, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and Collester.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Special Civil Part, Bergen County,

DC-18580-01.

Zoe Ajjahnon, appellant pro se.

Respondent did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Zoe Ajjahnon, a former tenant of plaintiff, Theresa M. Russo, appeals from an order dated April 15, 2005, denying her motion to vacate a judgment for unpaid rent and damage to the leased property. We affirm.

In 2001, Russo sued Ajjahnon for possession of the leased premises. Russo obtained a judgment and Ajjahnon vacated the premises in June 2001. Ajjahnon did not appeal from that judgment. In November 2001, Russo sued Ajjahnon for the unpaid rent and property damage. On May 28, 2003, after a bench trial, Russo obtained a judgment for approximately $6,200. Ajjahnon appealed that judgment, and we affirmed. Russo v. Ajjahnon,

No. A-5301-02 (App. Div. Nov. 9, 2001). Despite repeated requests by Ajjahnon, the Supreme Court refused further review.

On March 24, 2005, Ajjahnon filed a motion to "reinstate" the case. The motion was based on a claim of newly discovered evidence. More specifically, she alleged that evidence she had submitted had been removed from the court jacket. That allegation was, in turn, based on a notation in the Automated Case Management System that the status of a motion she filed was "WD."

Judge Donohue denied the motion in his thorough and well-reasoned written opinion of April 15, 2005. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Donohue. Among other things, Judge Donohue noted that Russo's motion was "untimely under R. 4:50-2." That rule requires that a motion based on newly discovered evidence must be filed "not more than one year after the judgment . . . was entered." Since the judgment was entered on May 28, 2003, and the motion to vacate was not filed until March 24, 2005, Judge Donohue was obliged to deny the relief sought. We note in passing that Ajjahnon did not show any basis for relief under Rule 4:50-1(f).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5256-04T3

April 5, 2006