STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SOLIMAN YOUSSEF(1-2016, MIDDLESEX 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5079-15T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SOLIMAN YOUSSEF,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________
Submitted July 13, 2017 – Decided July 25, 2017
Before Judges Yannotti and Haas.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, Municipal
Appeal No. 1-2016.
Soliman Youssef, appellant pro se.
Anthony M. Campisano, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Soliman Youssef appeals from a June 24, 2016 order
of the Law Division that, following a trial de novo on defendant's
appeal from the Metuchen Municipal Court, found defendant guilty
of violating Section 22-346 of the South Brunswick Township
Municipal Code, which requires all owners of rental units to obtain
a certificate of compliance from the Township prior to renting the
units to tenants. The trial judge imposed a $1000 fine, together
with $33 in court costs. We affirm.
By way of background, our Supreme Court has long held that
it is constitutionally permissible for municipalities, like the
Township in this case, to enact and enforce local housing codes
governing rental property in order to protect and preserve the
public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Dome Realty,
Inc. v. Paterson, 83 N.J. 212, 226-27 (1980). In addition,
N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.12m provides clear legislative authority for such
local ordinances. This statute states:
The governing body of a municipality may
adopt ordinances regulating the maintenance
and condition of any unit of dwelling space,
upon the termination of occupancy, in any
residential rental property for the purpose
of the safety, healthfulness, and upkeep of
the structure and the adherence to such other
standards of maintenance and condition as are
required in the interest of public safety,
health and welfare. Such ordinances shall
require the owner of any residential rental
property, prior to rental or lease involving
a new occupancy of any unit of dwelling space
in such property, to obtain a certificate of
inspection or occupancy for the unit of
dwelling space. Such certificate of
inspection or occupancy shall be issued by the
municipality upon the inspection of the unit
of dwelling space by a municipal inspector and
his [or her] findings that such unit meets the
standards provided by law. The municipality
may charge a fee to fund the costs of the
inspections and the issuance of the
2 A-5079-15T2
certificates. For purposes of this act
"owner" means the person who owns, purports
to own, or exercises control of any
residential rental property.
[N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.12m.]
Pursuant to this well-established authority, the Township
enacted Section 22-346 of its municipal code. In pertinent part,
Section 22-346(c)(1) states that "[t]he owner . . . of every rental
dwelling unit offered for rental shall be required to have an
inspection of the facility done by the rental inspection officer
prior to the rental thereof." "[U]pon satisfactory inspection"
of the unit, "[t]he rental inspection officer . . . shall issue a
certificate of compliance" to the owner of the rental unit.
Section 22-346(e)(1). The owner of a rental unit may not rent the
unit to a tenant until he or she has obtained the required
certificate of compliance. Section 22-346(e)(2). A new inspection
and a certificate of compliance is required each time the unit is
rented to a new tenant. Ibid.
Turning to the present matter, the facts developed at the
July 24, 2015 municipal court trial are not in dispute. Defendant
owns a residence in the Township, which he has rented to tenants
at least three times in the past. Sometime prior to June 26,
2014, defendant rented the property to a tenant, who thereafter
lived in the residence. Defendant did not obtain a certificate
3 A-5079-15T2
of compliance or have the property inspected as required by Section
22-346 prior to renting it.
On June 26, 2014, the Township's zoning enforcement officer
visited defendant's property. The officer spoke to the tenant,
who advised him that she had recently moved into the residence and
that defendant was her landlord. The officer confirmed through
the municipal tax records that defendant was the owner of the
property. The Township's records also revealed that defendant did
not have a certificate of compliance.
Later that day, the officer sent a letter to defendant
advising him that he needed to have the property inspected and
obtain a certificate of compliance before renting his property.
The officer enclosed an application for the certificate, along
with a landlord registration packet, and a copy of the Township's
residential rental housing code. The officer also warned defendant
that if he failed to comply, he was subject to a monetary penalty.
Defendant received the officer's letter, but advised the
officer in a June 30, 2016 reply that he was not going to comply
with the Township's ordinance. Upon receipt of defendant's letter,
the officer waited thirty days and then, on August 8, 2014, issued
a summons to defendant, alleging a violation of Section 22-346.
4 A-5079-15T2
At the municipal court trial,1 the Township presented the
testimony of the zoning officer. Defendant testified on his own
behalf and admitted that he rented the property to a tenant without
first having the property inspected by the rental inspection
officer or obtaining the required certificate of compliance.
On July 24, 2015, the municipal court judge found defendant
guilty of violating Section 22-346. After reviewing the matter
de novo, the trial judge also found defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of violating the ordinance by renting his property
without an inspection and a certificate of compliance. In a
thorough written opinion, the judge considered each of defendant's
contentions and found that they lacked merit.
Defendant argued that the Township's ordinance was
unconstitutional. In rejecting this argument, the trial judge
cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dome Realty, where the Court
held that municipalities may enact ordinances under the authority
of N.J.S.A. 40:48-12m to require property owners to obtain
municipal approval before renting their property to tenants.
Supra, 83 N.J. at 227-28.
1
Because defendant had several lawsuits pending against the
Township in the South Brunswick Township Municipal Court, the
matter was transferred to the Metuchen Municipal Court for
resolution.
5 A-5079-15T2
Defendant also asserted that the Township zoning enforcement
officer improperly searched his property in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. However, the trial judge reviewed the entire record
and found no evidence that any such search occurred because the
officer had merely spoken to defendant's tenant. In addition,
defendant admitted that he had rented the property in the past,
was currently renting it, and had never obtained the required
certificate of compliance.
Defendant also alleged that the municipal court judge barred
him from presenting testimony and documentary evidence, never told
him what evidence the judge considered or why the judge found him
guilty of violating the ordinance, and allowed too many
adjournments of the trial. As the trial judge expressly found,
however, the municipal court judge did not limit defendant's
presentation in any way, and rendered an oral decision fully
setting forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law at the
end of the trial. In addition, the trial judge reviewed the matter
de novo and rendered a new decision.
Finally, defendant argued that the Township should have been
estopped from prosecuting him for his violation of the ordinance.
In finding that this argument also lacked merit, the trial judge
noted that there was no evidence in the record that the Township
ever "misled or misinformed [d]efendant regarding the illegality
6 A-5079-15T2
of renting his property or the steps he needed to take to comply
with the ordinance." Moreover, the Township zoning enforcement
officer gave defendant an opportunity to comply with the ordinance
by submitting to an inspection and obtaining the required
certificate of compliance. Instead, defendant knowingly continued
to violate Section 22-346. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant raises the same contentions that he
unsuccessfully presented to the trial judge. Our standard of
review requires us to assess whether there was "sufficient credible
evidence" in the record to uphold the Law Division's findings.
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). We must determine
whether the findings of the Law Division "could reasonably have
been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the
record." Id. at 162. When we are satisfied that the findings and
conclusions of the Law Division meet that criterion, our "task is
complete[,]" and we "should not disturb the result." Ibid.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, our review of the legal conclusions
that flow from established facts is plenary. Manalapan Realty,
L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
Applying these principles, we are satisfied that defendant's
contentions on appeal are clearly without merit and do not warrant
further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for
7 A-5079-15T2
the reasons set forth in the trial judge's comprehensive written
decision.
Affirmed.
8 A-5079-15T2