JOSEPH S. D'ELIA VS. JOYCE CAMPISI (SC-316-17, MORRIS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4426-16T3

JOSEPH S. D'ELIA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOYCE CAMPISI and LIBERTY
MUTUAL MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________________

Submitted March 7, 2018 – Decided August 1, 2018

Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Special Civil Part, Morris
County, Docket No. SC-316-17.

Viscomi & Lyons, attorneys for appellants
(Sarabraj S. Thapar, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendants, Joyce Campisi and Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic

Insurance Company, appeal from a $600 Special Civil Part judgment
for plaintiff, Joseph S. D'Elia.1 Following a bench trial, the

court found defendant liable for damage to the townhouse unit

plaintiff owned, which was immediately below defendant's

residence. The damage to plaintiff's townhouse was caused by

water that leaked from a hose attached to a washing machine in the

townhouse where defendant lived. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff filed a Special Civil Part complaint seeking to

recover $1075 from defendant. According to the trial record,

defendant resided in a townhouse unit directly above plaintiff.

On January 11, 2017, as defendant was leaving her unit, she heard

the fire alarm coming from plaintiff's garage. She notified a

board member of the townhouse association. Maintenance workers

responded to plaintiff's unit and discovered water damage in the

corner of his garage.

Plaintiff leased the unit he owned — one of five in the

building — to a tenant. On the morning the leak was discovered,

personnel from the building's management company called and

informed him that smoke alarms were going off in his unit.

Plaintiff was able to call his tenant, who went to the townhouse

and observed the damage.

1
Because Liberty Mutual was not involved in the events underlying
plaintiff's cause of action, we refer to Ms. Campisi as defendant.

2 A-4426-16T3
 Plaintiff drove to the unit a few days later to assess the

damage. He testified the leaks had occurred over a matter of

weeks. When asked for the basis of that opinion, he responded he

observed the area where leaks had "[gone] down the walls." Based

on the number of leaks, the size of the hole in the ceiling, and

the extent of the damage, plaintiff opined the leaking had been

"transpiring over a matter of weeks." Plaintiff photographed the

damage and presented the picture during his testimony.

Michael Wynn, the tenant in the damaged unit and a contractor

by trade, prepared an estimate to repair the damage, which totaled

$725. Plaintiff paid Mr. Wynn $350 to begin repairs, which were

completed by Mr. Wynn's son.

Defendant testified that during the five years she had resided

in the townhouse unit she had never had any issues with water

leaking in general, or from her washer and dryer specifically. In

fact, she had received no complaints from any other tenant

concerning her unit. On the day the leak occurred, she left her

unit to walk to her car. As she walked past plaintiff's garage,

she heard a fire alarm. She reported it to a board member. Later,

when she returned after picking up her son, plaintiff's garage

door was open and people were inside.

3 A-4426-16T3
 Inside the garage, near a corner, maintenance men from the

building's association had discovered water damage and were

attempting to determine the source of the water leak. They were

tearing down sheetrock. They asked if they could look in her

unit. She obliged. They pulled out the washer-dryer unit and

discovered the rear washer hoses were leaking. Defendant said

"there was water all over and that's what happened, the water was

coming from the back of the washer, going down into . . . the

sheetrock."

The water was shut off from its source, and defendant

purchased replacement hoses. She paid for the repairs to the

washer.

The parties disputed the cost to repair the damage to

plaintiff's unit. However, the trial court's decision as to

damages is not at issue on this appeal.

At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court delivered its

decision from the bench and awarded $600 to plaintiff plus fees

and costs. Defendant appealed.

After defendant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court

issued a June 23, 2017 written amplification of reasons. The

court explained:

Negligence may be defined as a failure
to exercise, in the given circumstances, that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance for

4 A-4426-16T3
 the safety of others . . . . It may be . . .
the failure to do that which the ordinary
prudent person would have done, under the
circumstances then existing.

. . . .

Although not articulated well on the
record, the [c]ourt found [d]efendant failed
to exercise a reasonable degree of vigilance,
maintenance, precaution, and care. She
testified that it required two weeks for the
plywood to dry, and "water was all over" when
the washing machine was moved. Water was also
on the sheet rock and the floor. Clearly,
this leak occurred over a considerable amount
of time. Plaintiff saw prior water stains
where the ceiling was collapsed. Defendant
has the responsibility to be vigilant and to
maintain her appliances particularly when
living above another residence. . . .

. . . The [c]ourt found [defendant] never
denied liability in any of her testimony. She
only responded to the leading questions of her
attorney regarding prior knowledge of trouble
with the water or any notice of her washer
leaking. Self-serving testimony that one is
not aware of prior washer leaks or prior
machine trouble does not relieve the
[d]efendant from her responsibility of due
care and maintenance . . . . Defendant's
testimony reflects that she only contested the
cost for repair of the damages. . . . The
[c]ourt partially agreed with her and found
damages of $600.00 plus costs as reasonable.

On appeal, defendant argues she did not breach a duty of

care. She also argues plaintiff produced no evidence to establish

she was negligent.

5 A-4426-16T3
 "Final determinations made by the trial court sitting in a

non-jury case are subject to a limited and well-established scope

of review . . . ." Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150,

169 (2011). "[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." In re State for Forfeiture of Pers.

Weapons & Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M., 225 N.J.

487, 506 (2016) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv's Ins. Co.

of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). The court's findings of fact

are "binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial,

credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998)

(citation omitted). In contrast, a trial judge's "interpretation

of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established

facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty

v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) (citation omitted).

Here, defendant cites Siddons v. Cook, 382 N.J. Super. 1

(App. Div. 2005), for the proposition that she breached no legal

duty to plaintiff. We disagree.

In Siddons, a defendant's dishwasher hose broke, causing

damage to a unit below. We held under the facts presented there,

"no jury could reasonably conclude that [defendants] were

6 A-4426-16T3
negligent for failure to inspect and/or maintain the dishwasher."

Id. at 14.

Siddons is distinguishable from this case. First, Siddons

was decided on a summary judgment motion, and defendant presented

the certification of a plumber. He averred that the washer's

plastic feed line, which split, was not visible because it was

located underneath the dishwasher. The plumber also certified

that the visible portion of the hose was undamaged. Ibid. In

contrast, defendant in this case presented no testimony from the

maintenance men who discovered and repaired the hose. The trial

court was not obligated to accept defendant's uncorroborated

testimony as undisputed.

Moreover, unlike the plaintiff in Siddons, this plaintiff

presented evidence concerning the length of time the leaks existed.

Plaintiff testified about numerous water streaks on the sheetrock

below defendant's apartment, as well as damage from which the

court could have inferred the leaks had occurred over a significant

span of time. No similar evidence was adduced in Siddons. That

is not to say the trial court here was obligated to accept

plaintiff's testimony, but the court's decision as to whose

testimony to accept or reject fell entirely within the court's

fact-finding function. We are not convinced the trial court's

findings were so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with

7 A-4426-16T3
the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to

offend the interests of justice. Rova Farms Resort, Inc., 65 N.J.

at 484. For that reason, we will not disturb the court's

determinations.

Affirmed.

8 A-4426-16T3