TIFFANI M. ROSADO v. LOWER CITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3867-09T3

TIFFANI M. ROSADO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LOWER CITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant-Respondent.

___________________________________

April 26, 2011

Submitted April 13, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Nugent.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Docket No. DC-8993-09.

Tiffani M. Rosado, appellant pro se.

Maressa Patterson, LLC, attorneys for respondent (David C. Patterson, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Tiffani M. Rosado appeals from the April 13, 2010 Law Division judgment dismissing her complaint after a non-jury trial. We affirm.

Plaintiff and her husband leased an apartment from defendant Lower City Property Management, Inc. from August 1, 2009, to February 4, 2010. On September 28, 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant seeking to recover the rent she paid to defendant for the apartment, the cost of furniture destroyed by bedbug infestation, and treble damages under the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20. Defendant filed an answer on October 26, 2009. The case was tried before Judge Anne McDonnell on April 6, 2010.1

Plaintiff and her father testified at trial and introduced thirteen exhibits. Plaintiff testified that defendant did not provide her and her husband with a signed copy of the lease agreement and that the signature on defendant's copy of the lease did not resemble hers. She also testified defendant unlawfully charged her for the electric heat that defendant was supposed to pay; permitted her apartment to become infested with bedbugs that destroyed her furniture and that she had to exterminate; unlawfully raised her rent; and unlawfully retained her security deposit. She denied causing any damage to the apartment. Her father corroborated her testimony.

Plaintiff moved out of the apartment on February 4, 2010, leaving a note that she and her husband were approved for a housing subsidy for a one-bedroom apartment, defendant had no one-bedroom apartments available, so they had to move out.

Defendant presented the testimony of two witnesses and introduced ten exhibits to refute plaintiff's allegations. The apartment manager produced a lease signed by all parties and testified that he explained to plaintiff each term of duplicate original leases before she signed them. When he finished the explanation, plaintiff signed his duplicate original, but was in a hurry and said she would sign her copy later. The lease required the tenants to pay for all utilities except cold water and sewer.

The defense also presented documents establishing that plaintiff and a borough inspector inspected the apartment before plaintiff moved in; and that defendant's exterminating company inspected the apartment on April 6 and July 9, 2009, and found no infestation. According to the manager, plaintiff never complained about infestation.

Addressing the rent increase and security deposit, the defense witnesses testified that the complex was regulated by the Rural Housing Service of the Federal Government and any rent increase had to be approved by that agency. Defendant used the security deposit to partially pay for damage to the apartment and unpaid rent.

Judge McDonnell issued an April 13, 2010 letter opinion in which she addressed the disputed facts, resolved credibility issues, entered a judgment in favor of defendant, and dismissed plaintiff's complaint.

Our scope of review of a judgment entered in a non-jury case is limited. The trial judge's findings of fact"are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J.474, 484 (1974). "Thus, '[w]e do not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence.'" Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Middletown, 399 N.J. Super.486, 498 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting State v. Barone, 147 N.J.599, 615 (1997)).

We affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons explained by Judge McDonnell in her letter opinion. The judgment is based on findings of fact that are adequately supported by the evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

Affirmed.

1 The parties' briefs and the court's opinion refer to the trial date as April 7, 2010. The trial transcript is dated April 6, 2010.