SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-2978-21 

DARREN PIEPER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

ZACHARY COLFER, 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

________________________

Submitted February 6, 2024 – Decided February 14, 2024 

Before Judges Whipple and Enright. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. LT-000062-

21.

Darren Pieper, appellant pro se. 

Respondent has not filed a brief. 

PER CURIAM 

In this one-sided appeal, pro se plaintiff Darren Pieper challenges a 

September 29, 2021 order denying his request for an immediate trial in the

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-2978-21

landlord-tenant action he filed against defendant Zachary Colfer.1 Plaintiff also 

appeals from a March 2, 2022 order dismissing his landlord-tenant matter with 

prejudice. Because we cannot grant relief to plaintiff for property he admittedly 

no longer owns, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 

I.

We summarize the salient facts from our review of the motion record. 

Plaintiff previously owned property located at 1064 County Road 523 in 

Flemington (Property). In 2021, he filed an action to eject defendant and other 

individuals from the Property. Plaintiff deemed defendant a "holdover roomtenant" who remained on the Property based on a "verbal lease with [p]laintiff's 

ex-wife." 

After defendant purportedly "took over . . . [p]laintiff's entire house,"

"broke into . . . [p]laintiff's detached [three]-bay garage to . . . occupy it," and 

"threatened to burn down the house," plaintiff filed an order to show cause, 

asking the trial court to schedule "an immediate landlord[-]tenant trial based 

upon 'emergent circumstances.'" On September 29, 2021, the trial court heard 

argument on the application. During the hearing, defendant's attorney argued 

1

 Plaintiff's claims against two other defendants were dismissed without 

prejudice in November 2021, and those defendants are not involved in this 

appeal. 
3 A-2978-21

the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter because plaintiff failed to serve 

a "notice to quit" and a "notice to cease" on defendant in conjunction with the

order to show cause. Plaintiff disputed the jurisdictional issue. Accordingly, 

the judge stated he would "double check" defendant's position "before . . . 

entering any kind of an order denying [plaintiff's] request for an immediate . . . 

trial." Later that day, the judge denied the order to show cause. 

In a cogent written opinion accompanying the September 29 order, the 

judge found plaintiff failed to "establish[] any emergency circumstances that 

would justify the immediate scheduling of a landlord-tenant trial." Further, the 

judge concluded that "other than the nonpayment of rent claim, plaintiff ha[d] 

not set forth any actionable basis for evicting a tenant under the anti-eviction 

statute[.] N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1[ to -61.12]."2 However, the judge stated 

plaintiff's "complaint seeking a judgment of possession [wa]s preserved, and the 

matter w[ould] remain on the court's docket as an action for possession based 

upon non-payment of rent." Additionally, the judge ordered the matter to "be 

scheduled for disposition in the normal course." 

2

 The Anti-Eviction Act protects residential tenants from eviction unless the 

landlord demonstrates good cause for removal under one of the enumerated 

grounds, including a tenant's nonpayment of rent, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(a), and 

disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(b). 
4 A-2978-21

The record reflects the Property was scheduled for a sheriff's sale in 

December 2021, but the sale was delayed for approximately two months. 

According to plaintiff, he "lost ownership of his property in February of 2022 

because he was unable to obtain possession to be able to pay his mortgage." 

Therefore, on March 2, 2022, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with 

prejudice. In a brief statement of reasons accompanying the March 2 order, the 

judge found "[p]laintiff [wa]s no longer the owner of the [P]roperty." 

II. 

 On appeal, plaintiff argues:3 (1) "the [trial] court had jurisdiction, . . . 

plaintiff notified . . . defendants, but the court erred in not recognizing the 

multiple attempts"; (2) "the [trial] court erred in not noticing that . . . plaintiff 

had multiple grounds to evict . . . defendants under the Anti-Eviction Act"; (3) 

"the [trial] court erred in not noticing that . . . plaintiff served notice by his 

lawsuit that was filed against . . . defendants [and] . . . in stating that both notices 

[we]re required 'notice to quit' and 'notice to cease[,]' neither of which is a titled 

document under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61"; and (4) "plaintiff was denied [the] 

opportunity to show good cause." 

3

 We recite plaintiff's arguments verbatim, except where indicated. 
5 A-2978-21

For the first time on appeal, plaintiff also contends the trial "court erred 

in not noticing . . . plaintiff filed an action to eject . . . defendants," and the 

"eviction moratorium did not apply to ejectments." Further, he newly argues his 

"foreclosure action should have . . . been just cause to eject . . . defendants." 

"Generally, an appellate court will not consider issues, even constitutional 

ones, which were not raised" before the trial court. State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 

364, 383 (2012); see also Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 

(1973). As our Supreme Court explained, "[a]ppellate review is not limitless. 

The jurisdiction of appellate courts rightly is bounded by the proofs and 

objections critically explored on the record before the trial court by the parties 

themselves." State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 19 (2009). 

 Further, we typically "will not entertain cases when a controversy no 

longer exists[,] and the disputed issues have become moot." De Vesa v. Dorsey, 

134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993) (Pollock, J., concurring). "An issue is 'moot' when the 

decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the 

existing controversy." Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 

257-58 (App. Div. 2006) (quoting N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. State 

Dep't of Treasury, Div. of Tax'n, 6 N.J. Tax 575, 582 (Tax 1984), aff'd, 204 N.J. 

Super. 630 (App. Div. 1985)). In short, we "do not resolve issues that have 
6 A-2978-21

become moot due to the passage of time or intervening events." Wisniewski v. 

Murphy, 454 N.J. Super. 508, 518 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting State v. Davila, 

443 N.J. Super. 577, 584 (App. Div. 2016)). For example, "[o]rdinarily, where 

a tenant no longer resides in [a] property, an appeal challenging the propriety of 

an eviction is moot." Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J. Super. 246, 251 (App. Div. 

2005) (citing Ctr. Ave. Realty, Inc. v. Smith, 264 N.J. Super. 344, 347 (App. 

Div. 1993)); see also Daoud v. Mohammad, 402 N.J. Super. 57, 61 (App. Div. 

2008). 

Here, plaintiff expressly admits he "is only appealing as a matter of 

semantics." He explains that once defendant "took illegal full possession" of 

the Property, plaintiff could not pay his mortgage and "lost ownership of his 

property in February of 2022." Plaintiff also acknowledges "[t]he new owners 

who took over the [P]roperty have since evicted [defendant,] . . . which no longer 

makes [defendant] a part of this action." 

Under these circumstances, plaintiff's appeal is moot. Thus, we decline 

to speculate whether he would have prevailed at trial or whether he would have 

avoided the loss of his Property to a sheriff's sale had his landlord-tenant trial 

been scheduled sooner. 

 Dismissed as moot.