PRISCILLA PAJELA VS. DONELL L. PRINCE (LT-006572-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2960-18
PRISCILLA PAJELA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DONELL L. PRINCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted December 14, 2020 – Decided February 25, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. LT-006572-18.
Donell L. Prince, appellant pro se.
Victoria M. Brown, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
In this landlord-tenant action, defendant appeals from the dismissal of his
request for a Marini1 hearing and several subsequent orders. Although the court
erred in the issuance of a judgment of possession in favor of plaintiff and a
subsequent warrant of removal, the court later vacated the orders upon being
apprised of the mistake. Therefore, that issue is moot. As we discern no error
in the dismissal of the Marini request, we affirm.
On September 6, 2018, plaintiff, defendant's landlord, filed a complaint
for non-payment of rent against defendant in the amount of $884. 2 When the
parties appeared in court on September 26, defendant did not dispute that he
owed $884 in unpaid rent, but he disagreed with plaintiff's calculation of late
fees. Defendant also requested a Marini hearing. The judge stated he would
grant the request provided defendant deposited $884 into court by the end of the
day.3 The judge also instructed defendant to provide plaintiff with a list of
requested repairs no later than October 1, 2018.
On October 25, 2018, defendant appeared before the court for the Marini
hearing; plaintiff did not appear. The judge asked defendant about the status of
1
Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130 (1970).
2
Defendant owed $684 for September's rent and $200 for August.
3
Defendant made the required payment.
A-2960-18
2
a related Law Division action in which defendant challenged the habitability of
the premises in a suit brought against plaintiff. When defendant informed the
court the Law Division action was on appeal, the judge advised he could not
proceed with the Marini hearing until the appeal was completed as it involved
the same claims. The judge stated:
THE COURT: I can't do anything until the appeal is
over. You'll have to just keep paying your rent.
....
THE COURT: When the appeal is over, you can come
back here, you'll withhold your rent, and we'll start all
over again. All right? Thank you.
The request for the Marini hearing was dismissed.
However, on that same day, the court entered a judgment of possession in
favor of plaintiff. On November 8, 2018, the court entered an order permitting
plaintiff to receive the $1568 of disputed rent defendant had deposited with the
court.4 The next day, plaintiff requested a warrant of removal which the court
issued on November 16, 2018. An eviction was scheduled for December 5,
2018.
4
In addition to the $884 for the months of August and September, defendant
had deposited $684 for October.
A-2960-18
3
On December 4, 2018, defendant appeared before the court and alerted it
of the mistake. He informed the court that his rent was paid through October
and he had the November rent with him. The judge told defendant he would
dismiss the judgment of possession and warrant of removal if defendant paid the
November rent into the court by 4:30 p.m. that day. Defendant made the
required payment. The orders were vacated, and the court dismissed the case.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in dismissing his request
for a Marini hearing and in conditioning the vacating of the judgment of
possession and warrant of removal on the payment of the monthly rent. We
review the court's decisions for an abuse of discretion. In re Estate of Hope, 390
N.J. Super. 533, 541 (App. Div. 2007).
In addressing the first argument, our court rules require that from the time
"an appeal is taken," apart from certain exceptions which do not pertain to this
case, "the supervision and control of the proceedings on appeal . . . shall be in
the appellate court." R. 2:9-1(a). Further applications in the trial court to
modify the judgment may only occur with leave of the appellate court. Ibid.;
see also Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Manalapan, 140 N.J.
366, 376 (1995).
A-2960-18
4
Here, defendant requested a Marini hearing while a separate Law Division
action, which involved related claims about the habitability of the premises, was
pending on appeal. 5 It was therefore proper for the trial court to dismiss the
hearing request pending the resolution of the appeal in the other case.
The remaining arguments are moot. The judgment of possession and
warrant of removal were vacated. Because the orders were mistakenly issued,
it was error to condition their dismissal upon the payment of rent. However, the
error was inconsequential because defendant has not demonstrated he suffered
any damage. He was only required to pay the rent that was due. There were no
late fees or costs assessed. The orders were vacated and plaintiff's suit for non -
payment was dismissed. Therefore, defendant received the relief he requested
in this case.
Affirmed.
5
We recently issued our opinion in that appeal. See Prince v. City of
Englewood, No. A-2959-18 (App. Div. Dec. 14, 2020).
A-2960-18
5