NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5069-18T1
MONIQUE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAYNE LACINA-HEALY,
Defendant-Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted May 28, 2020 – Decided June 11, 2020
Before Judges Alvarez and Suter.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. DC-002054-
19.
Monique Johnson, appellant pro se.
Sullivan and Graber, attorneys for respondent
(Danyelle H. Golland, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Monique Johnson appeals a Special Civil Part judgment entered
in her favor against defendant Jayne Lacina-Healy. Finding substantial credible
evidence in the record to support the judgment, we affirm.
On July 14, 2018, defendant's vehicle struck a parked car, which collided
with other vehicles, and one hit the rear of plaintiff's vehicle, pushing it into
some garbage cans. New Life Auto Sports (New Life) estimated $3233 to repair
the rear bumper assembly of plaintiff's vehicle. She did not have it repaired
there, but had it towed to another shop, DC Auto Body, in Perth Amboy, which
was closer to her home. DC Auto's estimate to repair the front end of the vehicle
was $4638.88. The estimate did not mention any damage in the rear of the
vehicle.
The car remained at DC Auto without being repaired although it had been
taken apart and could not be used. Plaintiff claims defendant's insurer did not
inspect it until November 5, 2018, and that she incurred storage and car rental
charges in the meantime. After the inspection, plaintiff paid $5949.68 to DC
Auto for storage, tear-down and labor charges, and the car was put back together
and released to her. Neither the front nor the back of her car was repaired.
Plaintiff sued defendant in the Special Civil Part seeking $15,000 in
damages. At the trial on June 25, 2019, plaintiff and a witness to the accident
A-5069-18T1
2
both testified. An individual from DC Auto, who plaintiff subpoenaed, did not
appear for trial. Plaintiff indicated she would proceed without him. Plaintiff
acknowledged defense counsel's photographs of her car accurately showed its
condition.
Plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $3013.1 The judge found no damage
to the front of plaintiff's car based on the photographs:
I don't see any damage to the front of the car. I'm
looking at the estimate from DC Autobody, they got a
charge here for headlamps. The headlamp is fine, it's
not cracked. A charge for a new grill. There's nothing
wrong with the grill. There's nothing—I don't see a
single scratch of damage to the front of this car, just
because it hit some garbage cans. I don't see any
justification for $4600 worth of repairs.
The trial court found minor damage to the rear bumper, awarding plaintiff
the full amount of that estimate and a portion of her car rental charges.
On appeal, plaintiff argues:
I. I ASKED THE JUDGE TO SPEAK WITH THE
REPAIR SHOP, HE WOULD HAVE HAD A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS TO MAKE A
FAIR DECISION, I SUBPOENAED THE REPAIR
SHOP, BUT THEY DID NOT APPEAR. ALSO, THE
DEFENDANT DID NOT SHOW THE JUDGE THE
HIDDEN DAMAGE PHOTOS, HE ONLY SHOWED
1
This was comprised of $3233 for the rear bumper, $502 for car rental charges
and $82 in court costs, less $804 that defendant's insurer paid plaintiff.
A-5069-18T1
3
THE TOP PHOTOS. NJ REGULATION STATES
THAT HIDDEN DAMAGES MUST BE COVERED.
II. ALLSTATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
REPAIRS TO PLAINTIFF'S VEHICLE.
III. ALLSTATE IS LIABLE FOR THE EXTRA
STORAGE FEES.
We afford a deferential standard of review to the factual findings of the
trial court on appeal from a bench trial. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins.
Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). These findings will not be disturbed
unless they are "so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the
competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests
of justice." Id. at 484 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Fagliarone v.
Twp. of N. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963)). However, our
review of a trial court's legal determinations is plenary. D'Agostino v.
Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013) (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp.
Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).
There was substantial credible evidence to support the judgment .
Defendant's liability was not disputed. Plaintiff and a witness testified about
how the accident occurred. There was damage to the rear bumper. The court
found the photographs showed this damage. The court relied on the estimate
from New Life to calculate the amount of the damages and also allowed a portion
A-5069-18T1
4
of the car rental charges. Plaintiff acknowledged she had received $804 from
defendant's insurer, and that amount was deducted.
Plaintiff had the burden of proving her claims by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175, 191 (2005) (explaining that in
most "personal injury case[s] . . . . plaintiffs ha[ve] the burden of proving [their
case] by a preponderance of the evidence"). The record did not support
plaintiff's claim there were damages to the front-end of the car, hidden or
otherwise. There was no proof DC Auto's estimate related to this accident; it
was undated and did not mention the date of loss. It included repairs to parts
that were not damaged. Plaintiff's eyewitness did not testify that any front-end
damage occurred. The court was not required to call the witness who did not
appear, particularly here, where the testimony would have related to the
uncorroborated front-end damage claim. Given the lack of proof on this portion
of plaintiff's claim, the trial court properly disallowed the storage and car rental
charges associated with the claim.
After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable legal principles,
we conclude that plaintiff's further arguments are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-5069-18T1
5