SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3251

- 19
VITALY KULPEKSHA and ALENA KU LPEKSHA, Plaintiffs

- Respondents,

v. ARETI ARAVANTINOS, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________

Submitted March 3, 2021

– Decided May 12, 2021 Before Judges Alvarez and Sumners. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. DC

- 0 11724

- 19. Areti Aravantinos, appellant pro se . Eugenie A. Voitkevich, attorney for respondents

. PER CURIAM Following a bench t r i a l, t he Special Civil Part judge issued a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Vitaly Kulpeksha and Alena Kulpeksha ordering that their NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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

- 3.2 A

- 3251

- 19

residential landlord , defendant Areti Aravantino s , pay them $2930 for their unreturned security deposit , plus $8 7 in court costs

. On appeal, d efendant
argu es the judge failed to consider h er evidence supporting h er withhold ing of all of plaintiffs' security deposit due to damage s to the apartment and breach of the lease agreement

. We affirm.
In rejecting the self

- represented defendant 's c ontentions to retain most of plaintiffs ' security deposit, the judge determined that s he failed to provide sufficient proof of h er claims. T he judge rejected def endant's claim s for replacement of a washing machine and repair of a warped floor because there was no proof that plaintiff s damaged them

. The judge also denied defendant's claim for the cost of re - painting a bedroom white because there was no proof that s he objected to plaintiffs painting it pink

. Despite denying defendant 's claim of $1350 for " deep cleaning " because

s he did not have a receipt , the judge awarded h er $400, the maximum amount conceded by plain tiffs

. The judge not ed def endant was not entitled to return of the apartment in "mint condition

. " S ee Liqui

- Box Corp. v. Estate of Elkman , 238 N.J. Super. 588, 602 (App. Div. 1990 )

. T he judge allowed a $450 c harge to plaintiffs for repair of the dishwasher , finding there was evidence that it was clogged due to plaintiffs' misuse

. Even though defendant lack ed a receipt for3 A

- 3251

- 19

the $350 cost to repair a granite countertop , the judge allowed the claim

– – supported by video evidence of the damage

– – because it was "not an unreasonable amount

. " Lastly, the judge granted defendant's $70 claim for damage to the shower stall

. A fter deducting $1270 from plaintiffs' $4000 security deposit plus a conceded credit of $200 to plaintiffs for work they perform ed at the apartment , judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs for $2,930 plus $87 in court costs. The judge ruled that the Security Deposit Act (Act) , N.J.S.A. 46:8

- 19 to

- 26 , which would have doubled plaintiff's damages and possibly awarded them
reasonable attorney 's fees , was not applicable because the leased premises was

owner - occupied with two unit s and plaintiffs did not make a letter request for the Act to apply.
The r ecord leads us to conclude that the judgment should not be disturbed. Defendant has failed to establish why we should not "give deference to the trial [judge who] heard the witnesses, sifted the competing evidence, and made reasoned conclusions." Griepen burg v. Twp. of Ocean , 220 N.J. 239, 254 (2015) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs

. Ins. Co. of Am. , 65 N.J. 474, 483

- 84 (1974)). We see no reason to disturb the judge's factual findings and legal
conclusions as we are un convinced they were " 'so mani festly unsupported by or4 A

- 3251

- 19

inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'" Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A. , 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011) (quoting In re Tr. Created By Agreement Dated Dec. 20, 1961 , 194 N.J. 276, 284 (2008) ) (quoting Rova Farms , 65 N.J. at 474 ). A nd based on our de novo review, we see no error in the judge's legal conclusions. See 30 River C t. E. Urb

. Renewal Co. v. Capograsso , 383 N.J. Super. 470, 476 (App. Div. 200 6) ( citations omitted ).
D efendant's other arguments are not specifically addressed because the y lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.