MELROSE HALL EQUITY PARTNERS, LP v. FAOUZI SAOUD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4308-09T3

MELROSE HALL EQUITY PARTNERS, LP,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FAOUZI SAOUD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

December 16, 2010

Argued December 6, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Grall and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County,

Docket No. LT-8376-09.

Gerald J. Monahan argued the cause for

appellant (The Law and Mediation Offices

of Gerald J. Monahan, attorneys; Mr.

Monahan, of counsel and on the brief).

Joseph A. Pojanowski, III, argued the

cause for respondent (Pojanowski &

Trawinski, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Pojanowski,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Faouzi Saoud appeals from a judgment of possession entered in favor of defendant's landlord, plaintiff Melrose Hall Equity Partners on their complaint alleging non-payment of rent. Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to establish that a rent increase of 317% was permissible and not unconscionable. The matter was tried to the court, and on April 28, 2010, Judge Rogers issued a letter opinion explaining her reasons for concluding that the increase was not unconscionable. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in that opinion.

The premises at issue is a six-room, 1202-square-foot residential apartment in North Bergen that defendant has occupied since 1989. The apartment is subject to the North Bergen Rent Control Ordinance, and between 1989 and June 1, 2009, the rent was $391.91 per month. In 2008, plaintiff filed an application seeking authorization from the North Bergen Rent Control Board (Board) to increase defendant's rent on grounds of hardship. The Board approved an increase to $1242.39 per month effective June 1, 2009.

On March 16, 2009, plaintiff served defendant with a notice to quit and notice of the new rent.1 Because defendant did not vacate or pay the new rent on June 1, plaintiff filed for possession on June 5, 2009 based on non-payment of rent. Defendant filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the Board's approval of the rent increase, and the matters were consolidated. Judge Costello affirmed the Board's decision and returned the landlord-tenant dispute to the Special Civil Part.

At trial, plaintiff presented evidence that its monthly costs for the apartment are about $950 and expert testimony establishing a fair market rent value based on rent for comparable apartments in the area well in excess of the rent approved by the Board. A comparable apartment in the same building was rented for $1800 per month, and a smaller unit in a nearby building was leased at a monthly rate of $1750.

The judge recognized plaintiff's obligation to prove that the rent increase is "not unconscionable and complies with any and all other laws or municipal ordinances governing rent increases." N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f); see Fromet Properties, Inc. v. Buel, 294 N.J. Super. 601, 610 (App. Div. 1996). Additionally, he evaluated the factors a court should consider to determine whether an increase is unconscionable. Fromet, supra, 294 N.J. Super. at 614. Thus, the judge applied the governing legal standards and reached conclusions that are based on facts supported by the record. Finding no basis for concluding that the judge's determination is wide of the mark, we affirm. MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240, 254 (2007).

Affirmed.

1 This is the date stated by defendant. The notice included in defendant's appendix is dated June 21, 2010, a date after the judge's decision in this case and is obviously a second notice. This is one of several deficiencies in the record on appeal. For example, we have Judge Rogers's decision but not the judgment entered, and we have the decision of the Board's resolution on plaintiff's hardship application but not the application. We have considered the appeal despite the deficiencies because the parties have provided a record that is sufficient to permit us to review the issue raised.