VAHE KARAJELIAN VS. PARMINDER SINGH TALWAR (L-3131-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: July 5, 2018
• Docket: A-4653-16T1
• Status: Unpublished

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-4653-16T1

VAHE KARAJELIAN AND ANTRANIK KARAJELIAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

PARMINDER SINGH TALWAR,

Defendant-Respondent. __________________________________

Submitted June 18, 2018 – Decided July 5, 2018

Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-3131-16.

Beylerian & Associates, LLP, attorneys for appellants (Zareh H. Beylerian, on the brief).

Timothy N. Tuttle, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from a May 25, 2017 final judgment

determining the fair market rental value of premises leased by

defendant. We affirm. Plaintiffs own a gasoline station in Hackensack, New Jersey.

In 2005, plaintiffs leased the gasoline pumps to defendant. The

lease agreement was for ten years with a monthly rental payment

of $2500, and an option to renew for an additional ten years. The

lease agreement stated that in the event of defendant's decision

to renew, "[a]ll terms and conditions of this [l]ease agreement

shall remain the same, except that the annual rent shall [be]

adjusted to reflect prevailing market rates in the year of renewal,

and increased each year thereafter by three . . . percent per

year."

Defendant provided plaintiffs with timely and proper notice

of his intention to renew the lease. Plaintiffs notified defendant

that the fair market rental value was $7500 per month, and

defendant disagreed. The parties were unable to resolve their

dispute, resulting in plaintiffs filing their verified complaint.

The judge conducted a bench trial, and both parties provided

expert testimony concerning the fair market rental value of the

gasoline pumps. The experts agreed that the fair market rental

value should be between twenty-five and thirty-five percent of the

gross profit from gasoline sold at the pumps. The judge determined

the monthly profit to be between $17,000 and $18,000 based upon

defendant's testimony. The judge found that based upon the annual

three percent escalation clause that a reasonable fair market

2 A-4653-16T1 rental value was twenty-five percent of the gross profits,

equivalent to $4500 per month.

Plaintiffs contend that the judge erred in determining the

reasonable fair market rental value of the gasoline pumps, and

that the fair market rental value is higher than $4500 per month.

Our standard of review requires deference to a judge's

findings "unless they are so wholly unsupportable 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). We conclude there exists sufficient credible evidence in

the record to support the judge's findings.

The judge determined the fair market rental value using a

formula proposed by both parties' expert witnesses. The experts

disputed the figures to be used in the formula, and the judge

instead used the figures provided by defendant's "candid[]"

testimony. The judge applied the experts' formula, and determined

that the reasonable fair market rental value to be twenty-five

percent of the gross profits because it was not "commercially-

reasonable to make the rent in year one at the high[-]end or even

mid-end . . . because the rent is going to increase by a little

more than [thirty] percent" due to the escalation clause.

3 A-4653-16T1 Plaintiffs failed to evince that the judge erred in his

determination of the fair market rental value. The judge

determined the amount with the formula supplied by both parties'

experts and the figures provided by defendant's testimony, which

the judge determined to be credible.

Affirmed.

4 A-4653-16T1