ANTHONY REEVES VS. LAWRENCE NON-PROFIT HOUSING, INC. (L-2675-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3170-15T3
ANTHONY REEVES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAWRENCE NON-PROFIT
HOUSING, INC.,
Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted October 17, 2017 – Decided November 1, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Gilson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket
No. L-2675-15.
Anthony Reeves, appellant pro se.
Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, PC,
attorneys for respondent (Stuart A. Tucker,
of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Anthony Reeves, a former tenant of Eggerts Crossing
Village (ECV), appeals from a March 4, 2016 order dismissing his
complaint against ECV's owner, defendant Lawrence Non-Profit
Housing, Inc.
Our review of the summary judgment order is de novo. See
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405-06 (2012).
Our independent review of the record convinces us that there are
no material facts in dispute and defendant was entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.1 Ibid. Accordingly, we affirm.
The following facts are derived from the certification of
ECV's site manager, which is the only legally competent evidence
in the motion record. ECV is a 100-unit housing complex, in which
60 units are market rate and 40 units are subsidized by the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Plaintiff's
name was placed on the waiting list for a HUD-subsidized unit.
However, in the meantime, he signed a lease for a market rate
apartment. Because plaintiff was living on General Assistance at
the time, the Mercer County Board of Social Services (Board)
1
The trial court failed make to findings of fact and conclusions
of law as required by Rule 1:7-4(a) and Rule 4:46-2(c). Instead,
the court issued a three sentence oral opinion stating that even
if the court assumed the truth of plaintiff's factual claims
"there's still no legal merit to the claims you have in your
complaint which are for discrimination, prevention of Homelessness
Act and fraud." Even in a simple case, the motion court has an
obligation to do more than listen patiently to the parties'
arguments and then state a conclusion. Nonetheless, we do not
order a remand because the interests of justice are better served
by concluding this matter.
2 A-3170-15T3
subsidized most of his rent for that apartment. At some point,
the Board stopped subsidizing plaintiff's rent, apparently because
he had begun receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits.
In December 2014, defendant filed a summary dispossess
action, based on non-payment of rent. That action was dismissed
after the Board agreed to pay the back rent. However, the Board
did not continue to subsidize plaintiff's rent, and defendant
filed another landlord-tenant action in October 2015, by which
time plaintiff's arrears were over $4700. At that point, plaintiff
was still only number three on the waiting list for a HUD-
subsidized apartment. He could not raise the funds to pay the
arrears, and defendant obtained judgment for possession.
Plaintiff voluntarily moved out of the apartment on December 10,
2015.
Meanwhile, on November 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint
against defendant in the Law Division, asserting that the landlord
violated the lease, incorrectly computed his rent, committed
unspecified "fraud," committed discrimination under the Law
Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g), and violated the
Prevention of Homelessness Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-280, which
provides funds to subsidize housing for the poor.
Based on the undisputed summary judgment evidence, plaintiff
could not establish any of those claims as a matter of law. The
3 A-3170-15T3
evidence establishes that he was unable to pay his rent, not
because of any wrongdoing by the landlord but because the Board
stopped subsidizing his rent. There is no evidence that he offered
to pay the arrears and the landlord refused to accept the money.
Nor is there any evidence that the landlord refrained from evicting
non-disabled delinquent tenants, or otherwise discriminated
against plaintiff on account of his disability or because his rent
was subsidized by the Board. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g) (prohibiting
landlords from discriminating based on disability or lawful income
source).
On this appeal, plaintiff contends that the landlord refused
to accept the rent when he offered to pay it, refused to put him
on the HUD waiting list, and discriminated against him because he
received a public subsidy for his rent in violation of N.J.S.A.
2A:42-100. See Franklin Tower One LLC v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602, 605-
06 (1999). As previously noted, the undisputed evidence submitted
on the summary judgment motion does not support any of those
claims. Accordingly, we affirm the March 4, 2016 order granting
summary judgment.
Affirmed.
4 A-3170-15T3