Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Adams v. Rubano

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

October 8, 2013

NAKIA ADAMS, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FRANK RUBANO, Defendant-Appellant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 1, 2013

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. DC-000363-12.

Cherami Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Nicholas J. Cherami, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

Before Judges Koblitz and O'Connor.

PER CURIAM

A judgment in the amount of $6, 700 was entered in favor of plaintiff, Nakia Adams, and against defendant, Frank Rubano, following a bench trial in the Special Civil Part. Defendant appeals the judgment, contending that the trial court erred by (1) allowing inadmissible hearsay to be introduced into evidence; (2) asking leading questions of defendant during his direct examination; and (3) rendering a verdict that was against the weight of the evidence.

Following our review of the transcript of the trial, the arguments presented by defendant and the applicable legal principles, we affirm.

Plaintiff rented an apartment from defendant in May 2011. It is not disputed that on December 14, 2011, defendant locked plaintiff out of the apartment. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part alleging defendant wrongfully locked him out of his apartment and kept his personal property. In his complaint plaintiff sought $6, 700, the claimed value of the items removed from the premises.

At trial plaintiff testified that after he had been locked out, he reported the incident to the police and filed an emergent application in the Special Civil Part. On December 22, 2011, the court entered an order directing defendant to give plaintiff access to the apartment. When plaintiff returned home, he discovered that most of his property had been removed.

Plaintiff testified as to the value of his property, most of which had been acquired after he rented the apartment. For example, after May 2011, plaintiff purchased two television sets for $3, 000; a kitchen table and chairs for $749; a living room set for $700; and Christmas gifts worth $2, 500. Plaintiff mentioned that he did not have any receipts or other documentary proof demonstrating the value of any of the property, as such documents had been in the drawers of the furniture removed by defendant. The total value of all of the items removed was over $9, 300.

Defendant testified that plaintiff stopped paying the rent in October or November of 2011. Defendant claimed that, on December 7, 2011, he told plaintiff that he had to vacate the apartment. According to defendant, plaintiff agreed to move out the following week; therefore, on December 14, 2011, defendant changed the locks. Defendant further claimed that, thereafter, plaintiff requested access to the apartment to remove his property. Defendant testified that not only did he give plaintiff access to the apartment, but also arranged to have one of his employees help plaintiff move his property out and even loaned plaintiff the use of his vehicle.

On the issue of liability, the trial court found plaintiff credible and defendant "unbelievable." The judge also observed that the conduct of plaintiff at the time of the incident, as evidenced by his seeking emergent relief from the court and reporting the incident to the police, corroborated plaintiff's version. The court concluded that defendant wrongfully locked ...


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.