SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5079-15T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SOLIMAN YOUSSEF,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

Submitted July 13, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Yannotti and Haas.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Middlesex County, Municipal 

Appeal No. 1-2016.

Soliman Youssef, appellant pro se.

Anthony M. Campisano, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Soliman Youssef appeals from a June 24, 2016 order 

of the Law Division that, following a trial de novo on defendant's 

appeal from the Metuchen Municipal Court, found defendant guilty 

of violating Section 22-346 of the South Brunswick Township 

Municipal Code, which requires all owners of rental units to obtain 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

July 25, 2017
2 A-5079-15T2

a certificate of compliance from the Township prior to renting the 

units to tenants. The trial judge imposed a $1000 fine, together 

with $33 in court costs. We affirm.

By way of background, our Supreme Court has long held that 

it is constitutionally permissible for municipalities, like the 

Township in this case, to enact and enforce local housing codes 

governing rental property in order to protect and preserve the 

public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Dome Realty, 

Inc. v. Paterson, 83 N.J. 212, 226-27 (1980). In addition, 

N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.12m provides clear legislative authority for such 

local ordinances. This statute states:

The governing body of a municipality may 

adopt ordinances regulating the maintenance 

and condition of any unit of dwelling space, 

upon the termination of occupancy, in any 

residential rental property for the purpose 

of the safety, healthfulness, and upkeep of 

the structure and the adherence to such other 

standards of maintenance and condition as are 

required in the interest of public safety, 

health and welfare. Such ordinances shall 

require the owner of any residential rental 

property, prior to rental or lease involving 

a new occupancy of any unit of dwelling space 

in such property, to obtain a certificate of 

inspection or occupancy for the unit of 

dwelling space. Such certificate of 

inspection or occupancy shall be issued by the 

municipality upon the inspection of the unit 

of dwelling space by a municipal inspector and 

his [or her] findings that such unit meets the 

standards provided by law. The municipality 

may charge a fee to fund the costs of the 

inspections and the issuance of the 
3 A-5079-15T2

certificates. For purposes of this act 

"owner" means the person who owns, purports 

to own, or exercises control of any 

residential rental property.

[N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.12m.]

Pursuant to this well-established authority, the Township 

enacted Section 22-346 of its municipal code. In pertinent part, 

Section 22-346(c)(1) states that "[t]he owner . . . of every rental 

dwelling unit offered for rental shall be required to have an 

inspection of the facility done by the rental inspection officer 

prior to the rental thereof." "[U]pon satisfactory inspection" 

of the unit, "[t]he rental inspection officer . . . shall issue a 

certificate of compliance" to the owner of the rental unit. 

Section 22-346(e)(1). The owner of a rental unit may not rent the 

unit to a tenant until he or she has obtained the required 

certificate of compliance. Section 22-346(e)(2). A new inspection 

and a certificate of compliance is required each time the unit is 

rented to a new tenant. Ibid. 

Turning to the present matter, the facts developed at the 

July 24, 2015 municipal court trial are not in dispute. Defendant 

owns a residence in the Township, which he has rented to tenants 

at least three times in the past. Sometime prior to June 26, 

2014, defendant rented the property to a tenant, who thereafter 

lived in the residence. Defendant did not obtain a certificate 
4 A-5079-15T2

of compliance or have the property inspected as required by Section 

22-346 prior to renting it. 

On June 26, 2014, the Township's zoning enforcement officer 

visited defendant's property. The officer spoke to the tenant, 

who advised him that she had recently moved into the residence and 

that defendant was her landlord. The officer confirmed through 

the municipal tax records that defendant was the owner of the 

property. The Township's records also revealed that defendant did 

not have a certificate of compliance.

Later that day, the officer sent a letter to defendant 

advising him that he needed to have the property inspected and 

obtain a certificate of compliance before renting his property. 

The officer enclosed an application for the certificate, along 

with a landlord registration packet, and a copy of the Township's 

residential rental housing code. The officer also warned defendant 

that if he failed to comply, he was subject to a monetary penalty. 

Defendant received the officer's letter, but advised the 

officer in a June 30, 2016 reply that he was not going to comply 

with the Township's ordinance. Upon receipt of defendant's letter, 

the officer waited thirty days and then, on August 8, 2014, issued 

a summons to defendant, alleging a violation of Section 22-346.
5 A-5079-15T2

At the municipal court trial,1 the Township presented the 

testimony of the zoning officer. Defendant testified on his own 

behalf and admitted that he rented the property to a tenant without 

first having the property inspected by the rental inspection 

officer or obtaining the required certificate of compliance. 

On July 24, 2015, the municipal court judge found defendant 

guilty of violating Section 22-346. After reviewing the matter 

de novo, the trial judge also found defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt of violating the ordinance by renting his property 

without an inspection and a certificate of compliance. In a 

thorough written opinion, the judge considered each of defendant's 

contentions and found that they lacked merit.

Defendant argued that the Township's ordinance was 

unconstitutional. In rejecting this argument, the trial judge 

cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dome Realty, where the Court 

held that municipalities may enact ordinances under the authority 

of N.J.S.A. 40:48-12m to require property owners to obtain 

municipal approval before renting their property to tenants. 

Supra, 83 N.J. at 227-28.

 

1 Because defendant had several lawsuits pending against the 

Township in the South Brunswick Township Municipal Court, the 

matter was transferred to the Metuchen Municipal Court for 

resolution.
6 A-5079-15T2

Defendant also asserted that the Township zoning enforcement 

officer improperly searched his property in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment. However, the trial judge reviewed the entire record 

and found no evidence that any such search occurred because the 

officer had merely spoken to defendant's tenant. In addition, 

defendant admitted that he had rented the property in the past, 

was currently renting it, and had never obtained the required 

certificate of compliance.

Defendant also alleged that the municipal court judge barred 

him from presenting testimony and documentary evidence, never told 

him what evidence the judge considered or why the judge found him 

guilty of violating the ordinance, and allowed too many 

adjournments of the trial. As the trial judge expressly found, 

however, the municipal court judge did not limit defendant's 

presentation in any way, and rendered an oral decision fully 

setting forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law at the 

end of the trial. In addition, the trial judge reviewed the matter 

de novo and rendered a new decision.

Finally, defendant argued that the Township should have been 

estopped from prosecuting him for his violation of the ordinance. 

In finding that this argument also lacked merit, the trial judge 

noted that there was no evidence in the record that the Township 

ever "misled or misinformed [d]efendant regarding the illegality 
7 A-5079-15T2

of renting his property or the steps he needed to take to comply 

with the ordinance." Moreover, the Township zoning enforcement 

officer gave defendant an opportunity to comply with the ordinance 

by submitting to an inspection and obtaining the required 

certificate of compliance. Instead, defendant knowingly continued 

to violate Section 22-346. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the same contentions that he 

unsuccessfully presented to the trial judge. Our standard of 

review requires us to assess whether there was "sufficient credible 

evidence" in the record to uphold the Law Division's findings. 

State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). We must determine 

whether the findings of the Law Division "could reasonably have 

been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the 

record." Id. at 162. When we are satisfied that the findings and 

conclusions of the Law Division meet that criterion, our "task is 

complete[,]" and we "should not disturb the result." Ibid. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, our review of the legal conclusions 

that flow from established facts is plenary. Manalapan Realty, 

L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).

Applying these principles, we are satisfied that defendant's 

contentions on appeal are clearly without merit and do not warrant 

further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for 
8 A-5079-15T2

the reasons set forth in the trial judge's comprehensive written 

decision.

Affirmed.