JOYCE DRAYTON v. IRVING JONES

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3801-04T33801-04T3

JOYCE DRAYTON,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

IRVING JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Submitted December 20, 2005 - Decided February 10, 2006

Before Judges Hoens and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Small Claims Division, Bergen County, Docket No. SC-760-05.

Edward Rogan & Associates, attorneys for appellant (JoAnn Riccardi, on the brief).

Respondent did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Irving Jones appeals from a judgment in the amount of $1,459 entered in favor of plaintiff Joyce Drayton following trial in the Special Civil Part, Small Claims Division. We affirm.

Defendant is plaintiff's landlord. In her complaint, plaintiff sought to recover from defendant for damage to her furniture and carpets. According to the proofs at trial, plaintiff contended that some of her furniture and one of her carpets had been damaged in two different incidents, both of which were defendant's responsibility. First, she testified that one of the windows in her child's bedroom had been replaced but that the workmen had not sealed it properly, as a result of which air was leaking into the apartment. According to plaintiff, workers sent by defendant to fix the window attempted to move two beds in the room and damaged the footboards of the beds as they did so. She produced photographs of the broken footboards as evidence in support of her claim. She testified that the beds were part of a bedroom set, the full cost of which had been $1,575 and she produced a receipt that supported that claim. The receipt listed the original cost of the beds at $99 each, but plaintiff testified that they could not be replaced separately because the style was no longer available.

Plaintiff also sought to recover for damages she alleged were caused by a broken radiator. Plaintiff testified that she had installed a new carpet in the premises in July 2003, shortly after she moved in. She testified that rusty water leaking from the radiator damaged the carpet and she offered a receipt in the amount of $200 from a carpet company as evidence of the cost of the carpet.

Defendant did not dispute that workmen he sent to the apartment had caused the damage to the beds and to the carpet, but he contested the quantum of plaintiff's damages.

In evaluating the appropriate award of damages, the trial judge found that the beds could not be replaced separately from the remainder of the bedroom set because the style had been discontinued. As a result, he concluded that plaintiff was entitled to recover for the cost of the bedroom set rather than for the replacement cost of the beds alone. He then noted that the furniture was approximately one year old at the time it was damaged and concluded that it was appropriate to adjust plaintiff's damages to reflect depreciation based on the passage of time. He therefore concluded that the original cost of the bedroom set would be reduced by one-fifth to $1,260 to reflect depreciation. With regard to the damage to the carpet, he applied the same reasoning, finding that the original price should be reduced to $180 to reflect depreciation as well. The resulting judgment in favor of plaintiff was $1,440 in damages together with $19 in court costs.

On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence and that it constitutes unjust enrichment of plaintiff at the expense of defendant. We disagree and we affirm.

The scope of our review is limited. "[W]e do not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge 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." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)(quoting Fagliarone v. Township of North Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963)). Therefore, if the findings and conclusions of the judge are supported by substantial credible evidence, this court will not disturb them. Ibid.; see Weiss v. I. Zapinsky, Inc., 65 N.J. Super. 351, 357 (App. Div. 1961).

Here, there was undisputed evidence about the original cost of the bedroom set, the damage to the footboards of the beds, and the fact that the style of the furniture had been discontinued. It is undisputed, therefore, that the beds could not be replaced with ones that would match the remainder of the furniture in the bedroom set. In light of these facts, the judge's conclusion that the appropriate measure of plaintiff's damages should reflect the cost of the entire matching set of furniture, with an appropriate reduction to reflect depreciation, was amply supported by the evidence.

Similarly, there was no evidence in the record about the cost of the damaged carpet other than the receipt that plaintiff proffered. The judge's findings and conclusions concerning the appropriate quantum of damages due plaintiff for her damaged carpet are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and we decline to disturb them.

Finally, in light of our analysis of the evidence and the reasoning that supports the judge's exercise of discretion in fixing this damage award, we reject defendant's assertion that the award represents unjust enrichment as being without merit.

 
Affirmed.

On the first trial date, plaintiff could not present certain evidence needed to support her claims. The trial judge adjourned the trial for one week in order to afford her an opportunity to do so. We rely on the proofs that formed the basis for the decision before us on appeal.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-3801-04T3

February 10, 2006