SINGH REAL ESTATE v. SELENA CHRISTMAS

Annotate this Case

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2794-08T32794-08T3

SINGH REAL ESTATE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SELENA CHRISTMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted: April 21, 2010 - Decided:

Before Judges Stern and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Bergen County, Docket No. LT-9027-08.

Selena Christmas, appellant pro se.

Ronald Schwartz, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

We affirm the judgment for possession substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Joseph Rosa's letter opinion dated January 26, 2009 filed pursuant to R. 2:5-1(b). We are in total agreement with Judge Rosa that a tenant cannot enter into a consent judgment to pay rent arrears and obtain Section 8 re-approval by a given date, fail to make those payments, be spared removal only because a warrant of removal was not issued over the holiday recess and nevertheless again be spared removal notwithstanding the failure to pay the arrearages over the recess and for three weeks thereafter. The "consent to enter judgment (tenant to stay in premises)," dated November 18, 2008, executed by defendant-tenant and her attorney expressly provided that if tenant did not make the payments of arrearages and rent as provided therein, which were payable "by" and "no later than" "12/15/08," "the tenant may be evicted." The pre-printed follow-up order of January 14, 2009, states it was "entered at the request of Defendant(s)-Tenant(s)," extending the stay until January 21, 2009, also embodied an agreement by tenant "that absolutely no more applications will be made for additional relief (extra time) from any Judge relating to the judgment or lockout (eviction)." It is undisputed that those payments were not even tendered for over a month after the "consent" judgment, on January 20 or 21, 2009, the date the "Order for Orderly Removal" expired.

Defendant's complaints about the living conditions and lack of repairs are irrelevant to this appeal given the November 2008 order. Moreover, more than six months have elapsed since the November 2008 order was entered, so the period during which a hardship stay could be granted has passed. See N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.6.

Defendant states in her brief "that evicting a tenant despite the fact that the rent was satisfied seems to defeat the purpose of the Eviction for Just Cause Laws" and the Anti-Eviction statute. We understand the purposes of those laws and section 8 housing, and we recognize the societal need to reduce and avoid homelessness. However, we also agree with Judge Rosa that neither Housing Authority of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (1994) nor the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1, requires dismissal of a complaint whenever a tenant, no matter the prior agreements between the parties -- including counseled agreements -- or how long after the due date, tenders the arrearages and past due rent before the warrant of removal is served.

The stay heretofore entered by the Supreme Court pending the decision on this appeal is vacated, effective June 11, 2010.

 
Affirmed without prejudice to an application under Rule 4:50-1 to the trial court.

Defendant's notice of appeal and case information statement refer to a judgment of January 20, 2009. There is no written judgment in the record. There is a transcript of January 20, 2009 in which the trial judge stayed the "lockout" and eviction until January 22, 2009 and no longer.

Little involved a default judgment of possession obtained by a public Housing Authority against a tenant who arrived late for a hearing after a stay was vacated. She also tendered part of the arrears the same day and promised to pay the balance the following Monday. 135 N.J. at 278. In any event, as in Little, this defendant can seek relief under R. 4:50 based on the equities which include the history of payments since judgment was entered.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2794-08T3

June 1, 2010

 


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.