NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5030-15T1
PAONESSA COLON & RECTAL
SURGERY, P.C.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CERNERO CHILDREN'S TRUST and
JMC MANAGEMENT GROUP,
Defendants/Third-party
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NINA PAONESSA, individually and as
Guarantor of Paonessa Colon &
Rectal Surgery, P.C.,
Third-Party Defendant/
Respondent.
Submitted September 6, 2017 – Decided September 15, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-
0825-15.
James F. Weber, attorney for appellants.
McOmber & McOmber, P.C., attorneys for
respondents (R. Armen McOmber, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
R. 1:7-4 directs trial judges to render findings of fact and
conclusions of law "on every motion decided by a written order
that is appealable as of right. . . ." That basic tenet has been
often repeated. The absence of the analysis that leads a judge
to his or her conclusion makes our review impossible. After all,
we exercise a limited role on appeal. We do not disturb findings
of fact or conclusions of law unless convinced "they are so
manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent,
relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the
interests of justice." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins.
Co., 65 N.J 474, 484 (1974), see also Petrozzi v. City of Ocean
City, 433 N.J. Super. 290, 316-317 (App. Div. 2014).
On April 29, 2016, summary judgment was granted to plaintiff
Paonessa Colon and Rectal Surgery, P.C. Defendants Cernero
Children's Trust and JMC Management Group are plaintiff's landlord
and property managers respectively. The underlying dispute
involved the cost of defendants' fit out of rental premises for
plaintiff's use as a medical office.
On June 10, 2016, the court denied reconsideration of that
decision, and separately granted $16,775.77 in attorney's fees and
2 A-5030-15T1
$1,304.99 in costs to plaintiff, without any explanation
whatsoever. The order awarding fees and costs is now appealed,
and we are constrained to vacate it. The matter is remanded for
the judge to comply with the rule, and render findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We do not express any opinion as to the
appropriate outcome. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Reversed and remanded.
3 A-5030-15T1