NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-4426-16T3
JOSEPH S. D'ELIA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOYCE CAMPISI and LIBERTY MUTUAL MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________________
Submitted March 7, 2018 – Decided August 1, 2018
Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Morris County, Docket No. SC-316-17.
Viscomi & Lyons, attorneys for appellants (Sarabraj S. Thapar, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendants, Joyce Campisi and Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic
Insurance Company, appeal from a $600 Special Civil Part judgment for plaintiff, Joseph S. D'Elia.1 Following a bench trial, the
court found defendant liable for damage to the townhouse unit
plaintiff owned, which was immediately below defendant's
residence. The damage to plaintiff's townhouse was caused by
water that leaked from a hose attached to a washing machine in the
townhouse where defendant lived. We affirm the judgment.
Plaintiff filed a Special Civil Part complaint seeking to
recover $1075 from defendant. According to the trial record,
defendant resided in a townhouse unit directly above plaintiff.
On January 11, 2017, as defendant was leaving her unit, she heard
the fire alarm coming from plaintiff's garage. She notified a
board member of the townhouse association. Maintenance workers
responded to plaintiff's unit and discovered water damage in the
corner of his garage.
Plaintiff leased the unit he owned — one of five in the
building — to a tenant. On the morning the leak was discovered,
personnel from the building's management company called and
informed him that smoke alarms were going off in his unit.
Plaintiff was able to call his tenant, who went to the townhouse
and observed the damage.
1 Because Liberty Mutual was not involved in the events underlying plaintiff's cause of action, we refer to Ms. Campisi as defendant.
2 A-4426-16T3 Plaintiff drove to the unit a few days later to assess the
damage. He testified the leaks had occurred over a matter of
weeks. When asked for the basis of that opinion, he responded he
observed the area where leaks had "[gone] down the walls." Based
on the number of leaks, the size of the hole in the ceiling, and
the extent of the damage, plaintiff opined the leaking had been
"transpiring over a matter of weeks." Plaintiff photographed the
damage and presented the picture during his testimony.
Michael Wynn, the tenant in the damaged unit and a contractor
by trade, prepared an estimate to repair the damage, which totaled
$725. Plaintiff paid Mr. Wynn $350 to begin repairs, which were
completed by Mr. Wynn's son.
Defendant testified that during the five years she had resided
in the townhouse unit she had never had any issues with water
leaking in general, or from her washer and dryer specifically. In
fact, she had received no complaints from any other tenant
concerning her unit. On the day the leak occurred, she left her
unit to walk to her car. As she walked past plaintiff's garage,
she heard a fire alarm. She reported it to a board member. Later,
when she returned after picking up her son, plaintiff's garage
door was open and people were inside.
3 A-4426-16T3 Inside the garage, near a corner, maintenance men from the
building's association had discovered water damage and were
attempting to determine the source of the water leak. They were
tearing down sheetrock. They asked if they could look in her
unit. She obliged. They pulled out the washer-dryer unit and
discovered the rear washer hoses were leaking. Defendant said
"there was water all over and that's what happened, the water was
coming from the back of the washer, going down into . . . the
sheetrock."
The water was shut off from its source, and defendant
purchased replacement hoses. She paid for the repairs to the
washer.
The parties disputed the cost to repair the damage to
plaintiff's unit. However, the trial court's decision as to
damages is not at issue on this appeal.
At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court delivered its
decision from the bench and awarded $600 to plaintiff plus fees
and costs. Defendant appealed.
After defendant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court
issued a June 23, 2017 written amplification of reasons. The
court explained:
Negligence may be defined as a failure to exercise, in the given circumstances, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance for
4 A-4426-16T3 the safety of others . . . . It may be . . . the failure to do that which the ordinary prudent person would have done, under the circumstances then existing.
. . . .
Although not articulated well on the record, the [c]ourt found [d]efendant failed to exercise a reasonable degree of vigilance, maintenance, precaution, and care. She testified that it required two weeks for the plywood to dry, and "water was all over" when the washing machine was moved. Water was also on the sheet rock and the floor. Clearly, this leak occurred over a considerable amount of time. Plaintiff saw prior water stains where the ceiling was collapsed. Defendant has the responsibility to be vigilant and to maintain her appliances particularly when living above another residence. . . .
. . . The [c]ourt found [defendant] never denied liability in any of her testimony. She only responded to the leading questions of her attorney regarding prior knowledge of trouble with the water or any notice of her washer leaking. Self-serving testimony that one is not aware of prior washer leaks or prior machine trouble does not relieve the [d]efendant from her responsibility of due care and maintenance . . . . Defendant's testimony reflects that she only contested the cost for repair of the damages. . . . The [c]ourt partially agreed with her and found damages of $600.00 plus costs as reasonable.
On appeal, defendant argues she did not breach a duty of
care. She also argues plaintiff produced no evidence to establish
she was negligent.
5 A-4426-16T3 "Final determinations made by the trial court sitting in a
non-jury case are subject to a limited and well-established scope
of review . . . ." Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150,
169 (2011). "[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." In re State for Forfeiture of Pers.
Weapons & Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M., 225 N.J.
487, 506 (2016) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv's Ins. Co.
of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). The court's findings of fact
are "binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial,
credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998)
(citation omitted). In contrast, a trial judge's "interpretation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-4426-16T3
JOSEPH S. D'ELIA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOYCE CAMPISI and LIBERTY MUTUAL MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________________
Submitted March 7, 2018 – Decided August 1, 2018
Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Morris County, Docket No. SC-316-17.
Viscomi & Lyons, attorneys for appellants (Sarabraj S. Thapar, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendants, Joyce Campisi and Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic
Insurance Company, appeal from a $600 Special Civil Part judgment for plaintiff, Joseph S. D'Elia.1 Following a bench trial, the
court found defendant liable for damage to the townhouse unit
plaintiff owned, which was immediately below defendant's
residence. The damage to plaintiff's townhouse was caused by
water that leaked from a hose attached to a washing machine in the
townhouse where defendant lived. We affirm the judgment.
Plaintiff filed a Special Civil Part complaint seeking to
recover $1075 from defendant. According to the trial record,
defendant resided in a townhouse unit directly above plaintiff.
On January 11, 2017, as defendant was leaving her unit, she heard
the fire alarm coming from plaintiff's garage. She notified a
board member of the townhouse association. Maintenance workers
responded to plaintiff's unit and discovered water damage in the
corner of his garage.
Plaintiff leased the unit he owned — one of five in the
building — to a tenant. On the morning the leak was discovered,
personnel from the building's management company called and
informed him that smoke alarms were going off in his unit.
Plaintiff was able to call his tenant, who went to the townhouse
and observed the damage.
1 Because Liberty Mutual was not involved in the events underlying plaintiff's cause of action, we refer to Ms. Campisi as defendant.
2 A-4426-16T3 Plaintiff drove to the unit a few days later to assess the
damage. He testified the leaks had occurred over a matter of
weeks. When asked for the basis of that opinion, he responded he
observed the area where leaks had "[gone] down the walls." Based
on the number of leaks, the size of the hole in the ceiling, and
the extent of the damage, plaintiff opined the leaking had been
"transpiring over a matter of weeks." Plaintiff photographed the
damage and presented the picture during his testimony.
Michael Wynn, the tenant in the damaged unit and a contractor
by trade, prepared an estimate to repair the damage, which totaled
$725. Plaintiff paid Mr. Wynn $350 to begin repairs, which were
completed by Mr. Wynn's son.
Defendant testified that during the five years she had resided
in the townhouse unit she had never had any issues with water
leaking in general, or from her washer and dryer specifically. In
fact, she had received no complaints from any other tenant
concerning her unit. On the day the leak occurred, she left her
unit to walk to her car. As she walked past plaintiff's garage,
she heard a fire alarm. She reported it to a board member. Later,
when she returned after picking up her son, plaintiff's garage
door was open and people were inside.
3 A-4426-16T3 Inside the garage, near a corner, maintenance men from the
building's association had discovered water damage and were
attempting to determine the source of the water leak. They were
tearing down sheetrock. They asked if they could look in her
unit. She obliged. They pulled out the washer-dryer unit and
discovered the rear washer hoses were leaking. Defendant said
"there was water all over and that's what happened, the water was
coming from the back of the washer, going down into . . . the
sheetrock."
The water was shut off from its source, and defendant
purchased replacement hoses. She paid for the repairs to the
washer.
The parties disputed the cost to repair the damage to
plaintiff's unit. However, the trial court's decision as to
damages is not at issue on this appeal.
At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court delivered its
decision from the bench and awarded $600 to plaintiff plus fees
and costs. Defendant appealed.
After defendant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court
issued a June 23, 2017 written amplification of reasons. The
court explained:
Negligence may be defined as a failure to exercise, in the given circumstances, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance for
4 A-4426-16T3 the safety of others . . . . It may be . . . the failure to do that which the ordinary prudent person would have done, under the circumstances then existing.
. . . .
Although not articulated well on the record, the [c]ourt found [d]efendant failed to exercise a reasonable degree of vigilance, maintenance, precaution, and care. She testified that it required two weeks for the plywood to dry, and "water was all over" when the washing machine was moved. Water was also on the sheet rock and the floor. Clearly, this leak occurred over a considerable amount of time. Plaintiff saw prior water stains where the ceiling was collapsed. Defendant has the responsibility to be vigilant and to maintain her appliances particularly when living above another residence. . . .
. . . The [c]ourt found [defendant] never denied liability in any of her testimony. She only responded to the leading questions of her attorney regarding prior knowledge of trouble with the water or any notice of her washer leaking. Self-serving testimony that one is not aware of prior washer leaks or prior machine trouble does not relieve the [d]efendant from her responsibility of due care and maintenance . . . . Defendant's testimony reflects that she only contested the cost for repair of the damages. . . . The [c]ourt partially agreed with her and found damages of $600.00 plus costs as reasonable.
On appeal, defendant argues she did not breach a duty of
care. She also argues plaintiff produced no evidence to establish
she was negligent.
5 A-4426-16T3 "Final determinations made by the trial court sitting in a
non-jury case are subject to a limited and well-established scope
of review . . . ." Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150,
169 (2011). "[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." In re State for Forfeiture of Pers.
Weapons & Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M., 225 N.J.
487, 506 (2016) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv's Ins. Co.
of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). The court's findings of fact
are "binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial,
credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998)
(citation omitted). In contrast, a trial judge's "interpretation
of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established
facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty
v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) (citation omitted).
Here, defendant cites Siddons v. Cook, 382 N.J. Super. 1
(App. Div. 2005), for the proposition that she breached no legal
duty to plaintiff. We disagree.
In Siddons, a defendant's dishwasher hose broke, causing
damage to a unit below. We held under the facts presented there,
"no jury could reasonably conclude that [defendants] were
6 A-4426-16T3 negligent for failure to inspect and/or maintain the dishwasher."
Id. at 14.
Siddons is distinguishable from this case. First, Siddons
was decided on a summary judgment motion, and defendant presented
the certification of a plumber. He averred that the washer's
plastic feed line, which split, was not visible because it was
located underneath the dishwasher. The plumber also certified
that the visible portion of the hose was undamaged. Ibid. In
contrast, defendant in this case presented no testimony from the
maintenance men who discovered and repaired the hose. The trial
court was not obligated to accept defendant's uncorroborated
testimony as undisputed.
Moreover, unlike the plaintiff in Siddons, this plaintiff
presented evidence concerning the length of time the leaks existed.
Plaintiff testified about numerous water streaks on the sheetrock
below defendant's apartment, as well as damage from which the
court could have inferred the leaks had occurred over a significant
span of time. No similar evidence was adduced in Siddons. That
is not to say the trial court here was obligated to accept
plaintiff's testimony, but the court's decision as to whose
testimony to accept or reject fell entirely within the court's
fact-finding function. We are not convinced the trial court's
findings were so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with
7 A-4426-16T3 the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to
offend the interests of justice. Rova Farms Resort, Inc., 65 N.J.
at 484. For that reason, we will not disturb the court's
determinations.
Affirmed.
8 A-4426-16T3