VAHE KARAJELIAN VS. PARMINDER SINGH TALWAR (L-3131-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-4653-16T1

Filed Date: 7/5/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/20/2019