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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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