BEST OF LIFE PARK v. FREDERICK SCHNEIDER
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2538-07T32538-07T3
BEST OF LIFE PARK,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FREDERICK SCHNEIDER,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
VICTORIA SCHNEIDER,
Defendant.
______________________________________________
Argued October 28, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Skillman and Graves.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-5217-07.
Frederick Schneider, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
William A. Thompson, III, argued the cause for respondent (Callaghan, Thompson & Thompson, attorneys; Mr. Thompson, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Frederick Schneider appeals from a final judgment for possession of his apartment based on his denial of access and harassment of an exterminator sent to the apartment by plaintiff landlord. Although defendant and his wife have vacated the apartment in conformity with the judgment, we conclude that the appeal is not moot because defendant has expressed a desire to regain possession of his former apartment or another available apartment in plaintiff's apartment building in the event he prevails in this appeal.
We affirm the judgment of possession substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Kane's December 14, 2007 oral opinion. We also note that the Department of Environmental Protection notice of violations report that defendant unsuccessfully attempted to introduce into evidence at trial did not indicate that application of any of the chemicals the exterminator used in defendant's apartment created a hazard to human health. Consequently, even if properly established, those violations would not have justified defendant's actions in denying the exterminator access to his apartment. Defendant's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-2538-07T3
November 13, 2008
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.