PARVIN REMOLINA v. SHUMAILA KASHIF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4275-16T3

PARVIN REMOLINA,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SHUMAILA KASHIF, KASHIF ZIA,
ASIF ZIA and MOHAMMAD ZIA
BASHAR,

     Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________

              Submitted April 10, 2018 – Decided April 18, 2018

              Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-1662-
              16.

              Parvin Remolina, appellant pro se.

              Shumaila Kashif, Kashif Zia, Asif Zia and
              Mohammad Zia Bashar, respondents pro se.

PER CURIAM

        This is a residential landlord-tenant property damage case.

Plaintiff, who leased the premises to defendants, appeals from a

May 1, 2017 judgment of no cause of action entered after a bench
trial.1    Judge Thomas J. Walsh tried the case, made findings of

fact and conclusions of law, and determined that without expert

testimony, there existed insufficient proof to warrant a judgment

in plaintiff's favor.

     On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge failed "to find a

cause of action based on a landlord tenant breach of contract as

it pertains to normal 'wear and tear' versus destruction of real

property."    Plaintiff did not produce expert testimony addressing

the cause of the alleged property damage or the reasonable costs

associated with repairs.     Although defendants claimed plaintiff

failed to return their security deposit, defendants did not file

a counterclaim or cross-appeal.

     We conclude that plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.         R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E).    We affirm substantially for the clear and concise

reasons expressed by Judge Walsh.      We add the following brief

remarks.

     The standard of review of judgments or orders entered after

bench trials is well settled.   The findings of the trial judge are

binding on appeal if they are supported by "adequate, substantial



1
     The May 1, 2017 order specifies the matter was tried to
completion by a jury. Further review of the record confirms Judge
Walsh conducted a bench trial.

                                  2                         A-4275-16T3
and credible evidence."       Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins.

Co. of Am., 
65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).          We review a "trial court's

interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow

from established facts" de novo.         Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp.

Comm. of Manalapan, 
140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Applying this

standard, we see no error.

     Judge   Walsh   found    that   there    existed   a   landlord-tenant

relationship between the parties.            But he concluded plaintiff

failed to produce expert testimony as to the alleged property

damage.      The   judge   acknowledged      that   without   that   opinion

testimony, he would be unable to determine the basis for the

alleged repairs and the reasonable costs associated with any repair

work in the premises.      We have no reasons to disturb Judge Walsh's

findings and conclusions.

     Affirmed.




                                     3                               A-4275-16T3