NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0212-15T1
SIN'S REALTY, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RITESH KALRA, M.D., LLC a/k/a
RITESH KALRA, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted September 18, 2017 - Decided October 6, 2017
Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. LT-
6134-15.
Degrado Halkovich, LLC, attorneys for
appellant (Adamo Ferreira, of counsel; Mr.
Ferreira, and Felicia Corsaro, on the briefs).
Craig A. Squitieri, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Following two days of testimony from eight witnesses,
including the principals of the two entities involved in this
commercial landlord/tenant dispute, Judge Bachmann entered
judgment of possession for the landlord, plaintiff Sin's Realty,
LLC. In an accompanying written opinion, the judge summarized
the credible testimony of the landlord, two police officers and
several tenants regarding the problems arising after Dr. Ritesh
Kalra moved his pain management practice into plaintiff's
building in East Rutherford, and cogently explained why the
conduct violated provisions of the parties' lease.
The judge found Dr. Kalra, although seeing some patients by
appointment, saw many more walk-in patients, resulting "in more
than one dozen people appearing on many occasions, at the same
time." That practice "resulted in Dr. Kalra's patients
congregating in the hallway" the patients of a dentist and a
medical laboratory "also have to traverse, . . . obstructed that
hallway, and . . . disturbed and offended" neighboring tenants,
including an optometrist on an adjoining floor.
Judge Bachmann found Dr. Kalra knew "his waiting room [was]
inadequate to accommodate those patients," and that he used "the
hallway, parking lot and stairwell as his auxiliary waiting
room." The judge found the doctor should certainly have known
that would disturb other tenants, and was put on notice by the
landlord that it did concern and disturb his neighboring
tenants. The judge generally rejected Dr. Kalra's testimony
about his practice as not worthy of belief. Judge Bachmann
2 A-0212-15T1
specifically rejected the doctor's testimony that he did not
recognize his patients among the thirteen people who followed
him into the building one morning as captured on surveillance
video, and that the doctor was not scared when two of his
patients, one bearing a semi-automatic pistol, knocked him to
the floor and took $3600 in cash from his front pocket during
office hours.
The judge concluded the parties' lease prohibited defendant
from "obstructing or encumbering the yards, entrances, hallways
and stairs" and from "causing disturbances that would offend the
other tenants in the building" and provided the landlord a right
of reentry upon breach. He found the landlord proved the
conduct credibly described by the neighboring tenants violated
the lease and that N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53c(4) entitled the landlord
to possession based on the right of reentry and the notice
provided to the tenant.
Dr. Kalra appeals, arguing the lease provides that "the
tenant" shall not obstruct the hallways and entrances or cause
disturbances and the proofs establish that he "did not invite
patients to loiter in the parking lot, congregate in hallways,
urinate outside, smoke marijuana outside, drink alcohol or to
eat their lunches on the premises." He claims the trial judge
committed reversible error by expanding the terms of the lease
3 A-0212-15T1
to third parties over whom he had no control, that the court's
fact-findings are not supported by competent and credible facts
in the record and that the court denied him the ability to
confront witnesses "about their racial motivation in filing
complaints that formed the basis of the alleged violations of
the terms of the lease."
Having reviewed the trial transcripts, we reject those
arguments as wholly without merit and undeserving of discussion
in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The judge's
findings are amply supported by the credible evidence in the
record, which also reveals the court in no way denied defendant
the ability to confront the witnesses about their motives in
complaining to the landlord about Dr. Kalra's patients and the
conduct of his practice. We affirm the judgment of possession,
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Bachmann's
cogently reasoned written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).
Affirmed.
4 A-0212-15T1