SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2327-17T1

NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY

WYNONA LIPMAN GARDENS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TONI MURPHY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted February 11, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fasciale and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. LT-036910-17.

Essex Newark Legal Services, attorneys for appellant 

(Felipe Chavana and Maria D. Castruita, on the briefs).

Ehrlich, Petriello, Gudin & Plaza, PC, attorneys for 

respondent (Charles R. Isaacs, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

In this landlord-tenancy case, defendant appeals from a December 18, 

2017 judgment of possession (JOP) in favor of Newark Housing Authority 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 11, 2019
2

A-2327-17T1

(NHA). Judge Bridget A. Stecher conducted the trial, issued an oral opinion, 

and then, in February 2018, provided an amplification of reasons. After we 

denied defendant's motion for a stay, NHA re-leased the apartment to another 

tenant. We affirm.

In October 2017, NHA sent defendant a notice to quit and demand for 

possession of the apartment. The notice sufficiently explained that defendant 

had breached her lease by threatening and punching an NHA assistant property 

manager (the manager), violently smacking a clipboard from her hands, and 

physically injuring her. The notice identified sections of the lease that defendant 

had breached, and it adequately explained the legal basis for evicting defendant. 

NHA relied on N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e)(2)(breaching a public housing lease by 

engaging in criminal activity); N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(p)(assaulting or threatening 

an employee of a landlord); HUD Handbook 4350.3, Section 8-14 (addressing 

criminal behavior); N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1 (assault); and N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 (terroristic 

threats). Defendant did not vacate the premises, which led to the eviction 

complaint in which NHA contended that she was a holdover tenant.

The judge found the manager credible. She found, after listening to 

defendant's testimony, that defendant (who gave the manager "dirty looks," and 
3

A-2327-17T1

continued acting aggressively towards the manager during the trial)1 paced back 

and forth, brushed and bumped against the manager, and knocked the clipboard 

out of her hands. The judge also found that defendant threatened the manager 

while armed with a metal cane. The judge found defendant guilty of assault and 

terroristic threats by a preponderance of the evidence. Concluding that 

defendant breached the lease, the judge entered the JOP. Thereafter, she denied 

reconsideration.

On appeal, defendant makes four points: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction 

to enter the JOP; (2) the judge prejudged the case and deprived her of a fair trial; 

(3) the amplification of reasons misrepresents the facts and violates her due 

process rights; and (4) the judge had an insufficient basis to conclude she 

punched the property manager in the face. We conclude that these arguments 

are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons given by the judge, and add 

the following remarks. 

 

1

 There is no basis to conclude, as defendant contends, that the judge deprived 

her of a fair trial by documenting defendant's behavior during the trial. Although 

such conduct by defendant at trial is irrelevant to whether she assaulted and 

threatened the manager at the apartment, it is relevant to the judge's assessment 

of defendant's credibility. 
4

A-2327-17T1

The fact-findings of a judge sitting without a jury are "considered binding 

on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." 

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We will not 

disturb the judge's findings "unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly 

unsupported by or 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) (citation omitted). However, we review 

the judge's legal determinations de novo. Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. 

of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). We have no reason to disturb the 

judge's findings, and she applied the law correctly. 

The New Jersey Anti-Eviction Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 to -61.12, 

protects residential tenants from eviction absent a showing of good cause. 

Morristown Mem'l Hosp. v. Wokem Mortg. & Realty Co., 192 N.J. Super. 182, 

186 (App. Div. 1983). The Act specifically enumerates permissible grounds for 

eviction and the associated notice requirements. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 and -61.2. 

Absent proof of one of the enumerated grounds for eviction, the court lacks 

jurisdiction to enter a judgment of possession. Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. 

Little, 135 N.J. 274, 281 (1994). The judge entered the JOP relying on two 

sections of the Act. 
5

A-2327-17T1

She relied on N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(e)(2), which authorizes public housing 

authorities to evict a tenant when "the person has substantially violated or 

breached any of the covenants or agreements contained in the lease for the 

premises pertaining to . . . illegal activities[.]" The judge found that defendant 

breached HUD Handbook 4350.3, Section 8-14, and Paragraphs IX and XIV of 

defendant's lease by engaging in criminal behavior that threatened the "health 

[or] safety" of NHA employees. And the judge relied on N.J.S.A. 2A:18-

61.1(p), which provides for eviction if the judge finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that a tenant engaged in assault or terroristic threats against an 

employee of the landlord. Here, the judge believed the manager's testimony and 

made those findings. 

Affirmed.