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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-5069-18T1

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 
3

A-5069-18T1

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. 
4

A-5069-18T1

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 
5

A-5069-18T1

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.