Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

6 Pomona Management, LLC v. Nelson Cross

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A-0364-24

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0364-24

6 POMONA MANAGEMENT,
LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NELSON CROSS,

Defendant-Appellant.

---

Submitted January 14, 2026 – Decided March 12, 2026

Before Judges Currier and Jablonski.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Docket No. LT-007028-24.

Nelson Cross, self-represented appellant.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM
In this landlord-tenant action, defendant appeals from the June 25, 2024

order granting plaintiff judgment of possession, after a bench trial, for failure to

pay rent. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant executed a lease agreement with plaintiff for an apartment with

the term running from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024. A portion of the rent

was paid by the Newark Housing Authority, which inspected the property and

approved the monthly rent amount. Plaintiff asserts defendant did not pay his

portion of the rent in July, September, October, November 2023, and in April

2024.

On March 4, 2024, plaintiff notified defendant it was terminating the

lease, effective April 4, 2024, due to non-payment of rent. On April 21, 2024,

plaintiff filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part against defendant for

residential non-payment of rent totaling $2,120.1

During the June 25, 2024 trial, defendant testified that he withheld rent

payments in June, September, October, and November 2023 totaling $1,700

because the refrigerator was broken in his unit. He believed the lease agreement

placed responsibility on plaintiff to repair the refrigerator. He stated that he

paid rent every month after November 2023 up until June 2024.

1
As of the day of trial, plaintiff asserted defendant owed $2,591 for unpaid rent.
A-0364-24
2
At the conclusion of trial, the court issued an oral decision and granted a

judgment of possession in plaintiff's favor for $1,700 based on the amount

defendant conceded he had not paid. The court noted that defendant was

responsible for the refrigerator under the Housing Assistance Payment contract.

In addition, defendant made some rent payments even after experiencing

problems with the refrigerator. The court stated that its ruling was very narrow

and that "all rights are reserved with respect to the refrigerator[] [and] other

claims that the parties may have against each other." A memorializing order

was entered the same day.

On July 23, 2024, the court entered an order for orderly removal, staying

the execution of the warrant of removal until July 31, 2024.

On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in entering a judgment of

possession because the apartment is an illegal unit, has habitability issues and

the amount of the judgment is erroneous.

In reviewing an appeal from a bench trial, we "give deference to the trial

court that heard the witnesses, sifted the competing evidence, and made

reasoned conclusions." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Northfield Med. Ctr., PC, 228 N.J.

596, 619 (2017) (quoting Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239, 254

(2015)). We do "not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or

A-0364-24
3
make conclusions about the evidence." Mountain Hill, LLC v. Twp. of

Middletown, 399 N.J. Super. 486, 498 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting State v.

Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997)). "Findings by the trial judge are considered

binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible

evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484

(1974). We also defer to a trial judge's credibility determinations. In re Return

of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 117 (1997).

We do not accord the same deference to a trial court's interpretation of the

law; our review instead is de novo. Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of

Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).

Addressing defendant's contention regarding the legality of the apartment,

the court noted there was a valid certificate of registration and there was a May

2024 notice of violation.2 However, the eviction proceedings were premised

solely on the uncontested nonpayment of rent. The notice of violation did not

render the lease invalid or preclude the eviction action. See N.J.S.A. 46:8-28,

:8-33 (requiring a multiple dwelling property to be registered with the

Department of Community Affairs as a prerequisite to the entry of a judgment

of possession.); McQueen v. Brown, 342 N.J. Super. 120, 128 (App. Div. 2001)

2
The violation had not yet been adjudicated at the time of trial.
A-0364-24
4
(finding "that a lease is not automatically void simply because the landlord failed

to obtain an occupancy permit.").

Defendant next asserts the court erred in not considering the habitability

issues he raised regarding the unit. However, as stated, the court's determination

granting the judgment of possession was narrowly restricted to the uncontested

nonpayment of rent. The court explicitly advised the parties their respective

rights were preserved regarding such contentions which could be considered

under a Marini3 hearing.

To the extent we have not commented on them specifically, all other

points defendant raises on appeal lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

3
Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130 (1970). A Marini hearing is a separate
proceeding commenced by the tenant, allowing them to "raise lack of
habitability claims . . . provided the tenant deposits the rent with the [c]lerk of
the [c]ourt," in an effort to seek equitable adjustments to the rent owed. Ibid.;
Daoud v. Mohammad, 402 N.J. Super. 57, 58 (App. Div. 2008).
A-0364-24
5