NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0397-15T1
ALI ABDI and
EMAMIAN ABDI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH LOONAM and
DANIELLE LOONAM,
Defendants.
______________________________
JOSEPH LOONAM and
DANIELLE LOONAM,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
ALI ABDI and EMAMIAN
ABDI a/k/a EFFAT S. EMAMIAN,
Defendants-Appellants.
_______________________________
Argued November 1, 2017 – Decided November 21, 2017
Before Judges Fuentes, Manahan and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Bergen County, Docket Nos. L-
9477-13 and L-2620-14.
Ali Abdi, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Edward J. Bowen argued the cause for
respondents.
PER CURIAM
Appellants Ali and Emamian Abdi (the Abdis) appeal from a
judgment of the Law Division awarding respondents Joseph and
Danielle Loonam (the Loonams) damages based upon a failure to
return a security deposit and for payment of their counsel fees
per N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.4. We affirm for the reasons set forth in
the thoughtful, well-reasoned oral opinion of Judge Mary F.
Thurber. As we write for the parties who are familiar with the
procedural and factual history, we add only the following.
This case arises from an action initially filed in the Special
Civil Part by the Loonams seeking the return of their security
deposit based upon the termination of their tenancy of a single-
family residence owned by the Abdis. Thereafter, the Abdis filed
an answer and counterclaim, which sought compensation for numerous
claims of damage to the property. The Abdis also sought removal
of the matter to the Law Division and, after denial, filed
complaints based upon the same matters in dispute in the Special
Civil Part and in the Law Division. Ultimately, all actions were
consolidated and a bench trial was held over six days before Judge
Thurber. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge entered
2 A-0397-15T1
judgment in favor of the Loonams for the return of the security
deposit, less certain property damage amounts. In accord with the
applicable statute, the judge doubled the net amount improperly
withheld and awarded statutory counsel fees in favor of the
Loonams.
On appeal, the Abdis raise thirteen points including the
award of counsel fees, the valuation of damages to the property,
the "misconduct" of the Loonam's counsel, and the request for a
new trial.1
Having reviewed the trial record, we are satisfied that the
judge's findings are supported by substantial credible evidence
in that record as a whole. Rova Farms Resort, Inc., v. Inv'rs
Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We are further satisfied
that the judge's determination of damages was grounded in the
credible evidence adduced during the trial.
We are similarly satisfied that the award of counsel fees,
as authorized by statute, was premised upon a thorough review by
the judge of the quantum of fees requested in connection with
controlling decisions of law and the applicable N.J. Court Rule
1
The Abdis also raise several arguments that were not raised
before the trial judge. As those arguments do not involve matters
of substantial public interest, we have not considered them in
reaching our decision. Neider v. Royal Idem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J.
229, 234 (1973).
3 A-0397-15T1
and Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC). See Rendine v. Pantzer,
141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995); R. 4:42-9(b), RPC 1.5(a). We only add
that the Loonams sought payment of $37,540 in counsel fees. The
judge awarded $25,000.
Finally, to the extent we have not addressed specific
arguments raised by the Abdis before Judge Thurber and on appeal,
we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant extended
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirm.
4 A-0397-15T1