72-74 4th St Holdings, LLC v. Adisha Brooks and Michael Gibson

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3059-22

72-74 4TH ST HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ADISHA BROOKS and MICHAEL GIBSON,

Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted April 16, 2024 – Decided May 16, 2024

Before Judges Rose and Smith.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. LT-002288-23.

Ofeck & Heinze, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Patrick J. Jordan V, on the brief).

Respondents have not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM In this landlord-tenant action, plaintiff 72-74 4th St Holdings, LLC

appeals from an April 25, 2023 order dismissing its eviction complaint against

defendants Adisha Brooks and Michael Gibson. Having been advised by

plaintiff's counsel, after the appeal was filed, defendants "are no longer in

possession of the subject premises," we dismiss the appeal as moot. See

Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J. Super. 246, 251 (App. Div. 2005) (holding "where

a tenant no longer resides in the property, an appeal challenging the propriety of

an eviction is moot" unless "the eviction carries residual legal consequences

potentially adverse to [the] defendant"); see also Ctr. Ave. Realty, Inc. v. Smith,

264 N.J. Super. 344, 347 (App. Div. 1993) (recognizing where the defendant

"vacated the premises . . . his right to remain in the premises as a successor

tenant under the terms of the original lease and subject to removal only under

the Anti-Eviction Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1, presents a moot question that we

need not decide"); Daoud v. Mohammad, 402 N.J. Super. 57, 61 (App. Div.

2008).

Based on our review of the record, we discern no residual legal

consequences resulting from issuance of the April 25, 2023 order. We therefore

dismiss the appeal as moot.

A-3059-22 2