Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Housing Authority of the City of Bayonne v. Yolanda Hernandez

December 12, 2012


On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. LT-16493-10.

Per curiam.


Argued November 7, 2011

Before Judges A. A. Rodriguez and Fasciale.

Defendant-tenant appeals from a December 9, 2010 judgment for possession in favor of plaintiff-landlord. Defendant argues that the trial judge erred by finding that criminal activity occurred in her apartment and that she had damaged the premises.

We affirm.

Defendant lived in a public housing authority (PHA) apartment with her three daughters. Before traveling to Puerto Rico on August 11, 2010, defendant gave her adult son a key "to check [on] the apartment." On August 15, 2010, while defendant was still away, firefighters entered her apartment*fn1 and found a dog tied to a radiator near a stove, which had all four knobs open and one lit pilot. The fire captain testified that their gas meter readings were "so high" that an explosion could have occurred. He further testified that the dog appeared "panic[ked]," "hyperactive," and "scared," and had to deal with "low oxygen" levels because of the "alarming" amount of gas in the air.*fn2 He also testified that the gas had been flowing for fifteen to twenty minutes, thereby prompting him to order the building tenants to remain in their apartments for half an hour. Firefighters turned off the stove and electricity, and ventilated the apartment. Defendant testified that she gave keys to only her son, and she did not receive any reports of a break-in for the day at issue.

In September 2010, plaintiff served defendant with a notice to quit and demand for possession.*fn3 In November 2010, plaintiff filed its complaint for possession based on N.J.S.A. 2A:18- 61.1(b) (disorderly tenant), (c) (willful or grossly negligent damages to premises), (d) (violation of rules and regulations), (e)(1) (violation of lease covenants), and (e)(2) (violation of lease covenants in public housing).*fn4 In December 2010, the judge conducted the tenancy trial, rendered a four-page oral opinion, and entered a judgment for possession.*fn5 The judge stated:

[Defendant] is responsible for the actions of all those that she either gives a key to or allows into the apartment. [Regarding N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(c), t]he arguments . . . that [defendant's] gross negligence [did not] cause[] destruction, damage[,] or injury to the premises, this [c]court disagrees [with] . . . .

The firefighters were there for at least an hour. The tenants were confined to their . . . apartments for a half hour. It might . . . not be a tangible destruction, but it was serious damage for all those involved, and injury for all those involved. [Regarding N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e)(2),] the illegal activity was the abandonment of an animal, of a dog in an apartment for which [defendant] is held responsible. It was the . . . fire captain's testimony that the dog was . . . panicked. He was hyperactive. He was deprived of fresh air and oxygen. That too, contributes to the illegal activity and the cruelty to the dog.*fn6 [Defendant] is the individual that controls the apartment and has given her key out to . . . [her] son . . . . So[,] it's for those reasons that I am going to grant [plaintiff] judgment of possession . . . .

On January 10, 2011, plaintiff obtained a warrant of removal. On January 14, 2011, defendant filed an order to show cause requesting a stay pending appeal, and, on January 26, 2011, the judge stayed the judgment. This appeal followed. On appeal, defendant argues that the judge erred by (1) finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e)(2) because neither defendant nor a covered person committed a crime, and even if a covered person had committed a crime, a violation of N.J.S.A. 4:22-17a(3) does not constitute a violation of federal policy; and (2) no actual physical damage occurred. Defendant also maintains that neither she nor her children willfully or grossly negligently damaged the premises.

Factual "'[f]indings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial[,] and credible evidence.'" Walid v. Yolanda for Irene Couture, Inc., 425 N.J. Super. 171, 179 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). "'[W]e do not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant[,] and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'" Ibid. (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 40 N.J. 221 (1963)). Moreover "a trial judge's 'interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference.'" Ibid. (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). As such, we review a trial judge's legal conclusions de novo. Ibid.

We focus on defendant's contention that the judge erred by issuing the judgment based on N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e)(2). "[F]ederally-subsidized public housing agencies, such as plaintiff, are charged with the responsibility of providing safe housing for their tenants." Housing & Redevelopment Auth. of Franklin v. Miller, 397 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 2007) (citing 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437(a)(1)(A) (holding eviction proper where court convicted tenant of disorderly persons offenses).

Every public housing lease must provide that any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants . . . engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.