SIMONE EDWARDS VS. BRIDGET BOSCH(L-658-14, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-4391-15T1

SIMONE EDWARDS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

and

AMY LEACH EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIDGET BOSCH and BOHDAN LUCHYNSKY,

Defendants-Appellants. ___________________________________________________

Submitted June 26, 2017 – Decided July 12, 2017

Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, Docket No. L-658-14.

Oller, Luzzi & Breslin, LLC, attorneys for appellants (John M. Breslin, on the brief).

Ehrlich, Petriello, Gudin & Plaza, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Thomas S. Garlick, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit, seeking compensation from

defendants emanating from their failure to pay rent and from damage

done to the premises. The judge conducted a bench trial and found

plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for $24,261.99, consisting

of $22,000 in unpaid rent (ten months at the rate of $2200 per

month) and $2261.99 in damages to the premises.

Defendants appeal, arguing in a single point that the judge

"committed plain error and failed to make sufficient required

findings pursuant to R. 1:7-4 to support [the] decision in favor

of [plaintiff]."1 We find insufficient merit in this argument to

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We

add only the following few comments.

First, our standard of review requires deference to a judge's

findings unless "they are so wholly insupportable as to result in

a denial of justice." Greenfield v. Dusseault, 60 N.J. Super. 436,

444 (App. Div.), aff’d o.b., 33 N.J. 78 (1960); see also Rova

Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84

(1974). Defendants do not disagree but instead contend the judge's

findings are too cursory to comply with the requirements of Rule

1:7-4(a). We disagree.

1 Despite the limitations in the arguments revealed by this point heading, defendants also argue that the judge relied on inadmissible evidence. We reject that contention as well.

2 A-4391-15T1 The experienced judge made credibility determinations and

concluded the quantification of most of the damages was governed

by resort to the lease terms, which set the monthly amount of rent

due to plaintiff from defendants. Finding defendants failed to pay

for ten months of rent, the award for unpaid rent resulted from

simply multiplying ten times $2200. As for the additional award,

the judge again relied upon plaintiff's testimony, which he

expressly found credible, and other documents referred to by

plaintiff, in determining what damage was done and the cost of

repair. Nothing more was required.

Affirmed.

3 A-4391-15T1