RAMONA PERALTA v. 466 MONMOUTH STREET CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATES

 

(NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.)

                        NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-2801-16T1

RAMONA PERALTA,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

466 MONMOUTH STREET CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATES,

        Defendant-Respondent,

and

RUTH BONAPACE and CHARLES
HEWITT,

     Defendants.
_______________________________

              Submitted February 13, 2018 – Decided February 27, 2018

              Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No.
              L-2032-15.

              Law Office of Evelyn Padin, attorneys for
              appellant (Eliot Skolnick, on the briefs).

              Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys for respondent
              (James H. Foxen and Steven A. Unterburger, on
              the brief).
PER CURIAM

       Plaintiff appeals from a February 17, 2017 order granting

summary judgment to defendant 466 Monmouth Street Condominium

Associates.    Plaintiff argues that there exists genuine issues of

material fact precluding the issuance of summary judgment.          We

affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the motion judge.

We add the following brief remarks.

       When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we apply

"the same standard governing the trial court."    Oyola v. Liu, 
431 N.J. Super. 493, 497 (App. Div. 2013).    We owe no deference to the

motion judge's conclusions on issues of law.      Manalapan Realty,

LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 
140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).       There

are no genuine issues of fact and the judge followed the applicable

law.

       In Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, 
207 N.J. 191, 211 (2011), the

Court held that a residential condominium association had no duty

under New Jersey negligence law to maintain a public sidewalk in

front of its premises.     Here, it is undisputed that the area of

the trip and fall occurred on a public sidewalk in front of a

residential condominium association.     Pictures of the area of the

fall show a repaired sidewalk.

       Peter Economou, who lived at the property since around 2003

or 2004, testified that the public sidewalk abutting the premises

                                  2                          A-2801-16T1
had been in the same condition – a patched concrete surface – for

the entire time he had lived there.    He added that he did not know

who had patched the public sidewalk.

     In the judge's extensive oral opinion, she recognized that

there existed no credible evidence showing that defendant created

or exacerbated the alleged defect.     Although plaintiff does not

allege that the predecessor property owners, who are no longer in

this case, created or exacerbated the alleged defect, there is no

evidence whatsoever to the contrary.       Furthermore, plaintiff's

liability expert offered mere speculation that the repairs to the

sidewalk occurred while defendant owned the property.     For these

reasons, and for the extensive analysis conducted by the judge,

we conclude she correctly granted the motion.

     Affirmed.




                                3                            A-2801-16T1