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pro se plaintiff Darren P ieper challenges a September 29, 2021 order denying his request for an immediate trial in the NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 2978

- 21

landlord-tenant action he filed against defendant Zacha ry Colfer. 1 Plaintiff also appeals from a March 2, 2022 order dismissing his l andlord-tenant matter with prejudice. Because we can not 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 t he 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 "ve rbal lease with [p]laintiff's

ex -wife." After defendant purportedly "took over . . . [p]lai ntiff's entire house ," "broke into . . . [p]laintiff's detached [three]-ba y garage to . . . occupy it," and "threatened to burn down the house," plaintiff file d an order to show cause , asking the trial court to schedule "an immediate la ndlord[-]tenant trial based upon 'emergent circumstances.'" On September 29, 2021, the trial court heard argument on the application. During the hearing, d efendant's attorney argued

1 Plaintiff's claims against two other defendants wer e 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 defen dant in conjunction with the order to show cause. Plaintiff disputed the jurisd ictional 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 j udge denied the order to show cause. In a cogent written opinion accompanying the Septem ber 29 order, the judge found plaintiff failed to "establi sh [] any emergency circumstances that would justify the immediate scheduling of a landlor d-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 t enant 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 posses sion [wa]s preserved, and the matter w[ould] remain on the court's docket as an a ction 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 approxi mately two months. According to plaintiff, he "lost ownership of his p roperty in February of 2022 because he was unable to obtain possession to be ab le to pay his mortgage." Therefore, on March 2, 2022, the trial court dismis sed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. In a brief statement of reasons accompa nying 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 unde r the Anti-Eviction Act" ; (3) "the [trial] court erred in not noticing that . . . plaintiff served notice by his lawsuit that was filed against . . . defendants [an d] . . . in stating that both notices [we]re required 'notice to quit' and 'notice to ceas e[,]' 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 wh ere indicated.5 A- 2978

- 21

For the first time on appeal, plaintiff also conten ds the trial "court erred in not noticing . . . plaintiff filed an action to eject . . . defendants," and the
"e viction moratorium did not apply to ejectments." F urther, he newly argues his "foreclosure action should have . . . been just cau se to eject . . . defendants." "Generally, an appellate court will not consider is sues, 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. In s. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). As our Supreme Court explained, "[a]ppella te review is not limitless. The jurisdiction of appellate courts rightly is bou nded 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 (20 09). Further, we typically "will not entertain cases wh en a controversy no longer exists[,] and the disputed issues have becom e 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 hav e 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 have6 A- 2978

- 21

become moot due to the passage of time or interveni ng 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. S uper. 57, 61 (App. Div. 2008). Here, plaintiff expressly admits he "is only appeal ing 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 [de fendant,] . . . 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 sal e had his landlord-tenant trial been scheduled sooner. Dismissed as moot.