ANATOLIY KHUSID v. MARY ANN COCCHIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3195-11T1

ANATOLIY KHUSID,

Defendant-Appellant,

v.

MARY ANN COCCHIA and

SIGNATURE PROPERTY GROUP1,

Defendants-Respondents.

_______________________________________

March 25, 2013

Submitted March 12, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Yannotti.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Special Civil Part, Somerset County, Docket No. SC-982-11.

Anatoliy Khusid, appellant pro se.

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., attorneys for respondent Mary Ann Cocchia (Christopher J. Dalton, on the brief).

Daly, Lamastra & Cunningham, attorneys for respondent Signature Property Group (Marie Seitz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Anatoliy Khusid appeals from a final judgment entered by the Special Civil Part, Small Claims Division, on December 20, 2011, which dismissed his complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in the amount of $513 for defendant Mary Ann Cocchia (Cocchia) on behalf of Long Meadow Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Association) on a counterclaim. We affirm.

Plaintiff owns a dwelling unit in Long Meadow Neighborhood, which is in The Hills Development in Bedminster, New Jersey. As a resident of Long Meadow, plaintiff is a member of the Association. As such, plaintiff is subject to the Association's governing documents and its rules and regulations, which require, among other things, that members pay certain fees and assessments. Cocchia is the Association's President and Signature Property Group (Signature) is the Association's Property Manager.

On October 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint against Signature in the trial court. The matter was docketed as SC-907-11. Plaintiff alleged that Signature had improperly imposed a $250 special assessment upon Long Meadow residents for unanticipated snow clearing costs incurred in the winter of 2010-2011. Plaintiff claimed that his investigation of the assessment revealed certain irregularities and overcharges.

On November 9, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in the trial court against Signature and Cocchia. This matter was docketed as SC-982-11. In this complaint, plaintiff sought $135, which he alleged had been improperly charged for the 2010-2011 snow removal costs. He also sought $425 in reimbursement for repairs he made to the Association's property, $400 in assessments for "discontinued landscaping," and a $50 late fee that was allegedly assessed improperly.

Both matters were called for trial on December 20, 2011. The court determined that Signature was not legally responsible for the assessments and had merely passed along assessments imposed by the Association on Long Meadow residents. The court accordingly dismissed the claims against Signature and then heard testimony on plaintiff's other claims.

Plaintiff stated that the $250 special assessment the Association had imposed for unexpected snow-removal costs in the winter of 2010-2011, was excessive. Plaintiff also said that he stopped paying a portion of his monthly maintenance fee because he had directed the Association's landscaper to stop cutting the lawn in front of his unit. Plaintiff additionally claimed he was entitled to a refund of $400 he paid to the Association for its assessments, as a refund for the aforementioned "discontinued landscaping."

In addition, plaintiff alleged that the Association had twice deposited one of his checks for the monthly maintenance fee but failed to give him credit for the double payment. Plaintiff further claimed that the Association owed him $173 and improperly charged him a $50 late fee.

Plaintiff further alleged that he was entitled to $425 for the costs he incurred sealing the parking area adjacent to his unit. Plaintiff claimed that the Association's contractor had not properly sealed the parking area. He said that, when the Association failed to correct the problem, he decided to "fix" it himself. He sought $175 for materials and $250 for labor.

Cocchia disputed plaintiff's claims and was granted leave to assert a counterclaim against plaintiff for unpaid fees and assessments. Barbara Polychronis, who is employed by Signature, testified that plaintiff had an outstanding balance of $859 and the Association had received $346 from plaintiff, which it was holding in escrow pending the outcome of his lawsuits. This left an outstanding balance of $513.

After hearing the testimony, the court rendered a decision from the bench. The court determined that, as a resident of Long Meadow, plaintiff was required to abide by the Association's governing documents and its rules and regulations. The court observed that plaintiff did not have the right to unilaterally stop paying the assessments, reduce any assessment or direct that his payments "be applied one way or the other."

The court additionally found that plaintiff had the right to ask the Association's landscaper not to perform work near his unit, but he did not have "the option" of having the Association stop billing him for landscaping services because "that's part of [his] agreement" with the Association. The court also determined that the Association was entitled to the amounts due from plaintiff, including the late fees.

The court accordingly entered a judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims and awarding Cocchia $513 on the counterclaim. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend his answer, permit discovery and amend the final judgment. The trial court considered the motion on February 10, 2012. The court found that there was no basis for the relief plaintiff was seeking, and entered an order dated February 10, 2012, denying the motion. This appeal followed.2

Plaintiff essentially repeats the arguments he presented at trial. Plaintiff maintains that the Association overcharged him for snow removal for the winter of 2010-2011. Plaintiff contends that he validly terminated the landscaping services at his unit and the Association should not have charged him for those services.

Plaintiff also claims that the Association's contractor did not properly seal the parking area near his unit and he was entitled to reimbursement from the Association for the costs of repairing the alleged inadequate work. In addition, plaintiff argues that Cocchia should not have been permitted to assert the counterclaim at trial and he was improperly assessed late fees.

The scope of our review of findings of fact made by a trial court sitting without a jury is limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). A trial court's findings "are binding on appeal if supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Id. at 412. (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).

Moreover, deference to the trial court's findings is especially appropriate "'when the evidence is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility.'" Ibid. (quoting In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 117 (1997)). We will not reverse the trial court's findings unless we are convinced that "'they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'" Ibid. (quoting Rova Farms, supra, 65 N.J. at 484).

We have carefully considered plaintiff's arguments and conclude that they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following brief comments.

We are satisfied that the trial court's findings of fact are amply supported by the evidence presented at trial. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). The Association established that its governing documents and its rules and regulations do not permit plaintiff to pay less than the full amount of an assessment because plaintiff decided he did not want the Association's landscaper to service his unit.

In addition, there was no basis to plaintiff's claim that the Association's special snow-clearing assessment for 2010-2011 was excessive or his claim for reimbursement for unilaterally electing to improve the parking area near his unit. The evidence also established that the Association was entitled to the $513 it was awarded for the unpaid fees and assessments.

1 The notice of appeal designated the respondent as "Cocchia Mary Ann." We have changed the caption to conform to the trial court's judgment.

2 We note that on May 22, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to supplement the record. We denied that motion by order entered on June 20, 2012. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2012, which was denied by order dated July 23, 2012. Plaintiff filed another motion to supplement the record on October 22, 2012. We entered an order dated December 3, 2012, denying that motion. Our order noted that if plaintiff's briefs or appendices included any of the proposed supplemental materials, they would not be considered.