SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4426-16T3

JOSEPH S. D'ELIA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOYCE CAMPISI and LIBERTY 

MUTUAL MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________________

Submitted March 7, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Special Civil Part, Morris 

County, Docket No. SC-316-17.

Viscomi & Lyons, attorneys for appellants 

(Sarabraj S. Thapar, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendants, Joyce Campisi and Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic 

Insurance Company, appeal from a $600 Special Civil Part judgment 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

August 1, 2018
2 A-4426-16T3

for plaintiff, Joseph S. D'Elia.

1 Following a bench trial, the 

court found defendant liable for damage to the townhouse unit 

plaintiff owned, which was immediately below defendant's 

residence. The damage to plaintiff's townhouse was caused by 

water that leaked from a hose attached to a washing machine in the 

townhouse where defendant lived. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff filed a Special Civil Part complaint seeking to 

recover $1075 from defendant. According to the trial record,

defendant resided in a townhouse unit directly above plaintiff. 

On January 11, 2017, as defendant was leaving her unit, she heard 

the fire alarm coming from plaintiff's garage. She notified a 

board member of the townhouse association. Maintenance workers

responded to plaintiff's unit and discovered water damage in the 

corner of his garage. 

Plaintiff leased the unit he owned — one of five in the 

building — to a tenant. On the morning the leak was discovered, 

personnel from the building's management company called and 

informed him that smoke alarms were going off in his unit. 

Plaintiff was able to call his tenant, who went to the townhouse 

and observed the damage. 

 

1 Because Liberty Mutual was not involved in the events underlying 

plaintiff's cause of action, we refer to Ms. Campisi as defendant. 
3 A-4426-16T3

Plaintiff drove to the unit a few days later to assess the 

damage. He testified the leaks had occurred over a matter of 

weeks. When asked for the basis of that opinion, he responded he 

observed the area where leaks had "[gone] down the walls." Based 

on the number of leaks, the size of the hole in the ceiling, and 

the extent of the damage, plaintiff opined the leaking had been 

"transpiring over a matter of weeks." Plaintiff photographed the 

damage and presented the picture during his testimony. 

Michael Wynn, the tenant in the damaged unit and a contractor 

by trade, prepared an estimate to repair the damage, which totaled 

$725. Plaintiff paid Mr. Wynn $350 to begin repairs, which were 

completed by Mr. Wynn's son. 

Defendant testified that during the five years she had resided 

in the townhouse unit she had never had any issues with water 

leaking in general, or from her washer and dryer specifically. In 

fact, she had received no complaints from any other tenant 

concerning her unit. On the day the leak occurred, she left her 

unit to walk to her car. As she walked past plaintiff's garage, 

she heard a fire alarm. She reported it to a board member. Later, 

when she returned after picking up her son, plaintiff's garage 

door was open and people were inside. 
4 A-4426-16T3

Inside the garage, near a corner, maintenance men from the 

building's association had discovered water damage and were 

attempting to determine the source of the water leak. They were 

tearing down sheetrock. They asked if they could look in her 

unit. She obliged. They pulled out the washer-dryer unit and 

discovered the rear washer hoses were leaking. Defendant said 

"there was water all over and that's what happened, the water was 

coming from the back of the washer, going down into . . . the 

sheetrock." 

The water was shut off from its source, and defendant 

purchased replacement hoses. She paid for the repairs to the 

washer. 

The parties disputed the cost to repair the damage to 

plaintiff's unit. However, the trial court's decision as to 

damages is not at issue on this appeal.

At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court delivered its 

decision from the bench and awarded $600 to plaintiff plus fees 

and costs. Defendant appealed. 

After defendant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court 

issued a June 23, 2017 written amplification of reasons. The 

court explained: 

Negligence may be defined as a failure 

to exercise, in the given circumstances, that 

degree of care, precaution, and vigilance for 
5 A-4426-16T3

the safety of others . . . . It may be . . . 

the failure to do that which the ordinary 

prudent person would have done, under the 

circumstances then existing.

. . . . 

Although not articulated well on the 

record, the [c]ourt found [d]efendant failed 

to exercise a reasonable degree of vigilance, 

maintenance, precaution, and care. She 

testified that it required two weeks for the 

plywood to dry, and "water was all over" when 

the washing machine was moved. Water was also 

on the sheet rock and the floor. Clearly, 

this leak occurred over a considerable amount 

of time. Plaintiff saw prior water stains 

where the ceiling was collapsed. Defendant 

has the responsibility to be vigilant and to 

maintain her appliances particularly when 

living above another residence. . . . 

. . . The [c]ourt found [defendant] never 

denied liability in any of her testimony. She 

only responded to the leading questions of her 

attorney regarding prior knowledge of trouble 

with the water or any notice of her washer 

leaking. Self-serving testimony that one is 

not aware of prior washer leaks or prior 

machine trouble does not relieve the 

[d]efendant from her responsibility of due 

care and maintenance . . . . Defendant's 

testimony reflects that she only contested the 

cost for repair of the damages. . . . The 

[c]ourt partially agreed with her and found 

damages of $600.00 plus costs as reasonable.

On appeal, defendant argues she did not breach a duty of 

care. She also argues plaintiff produced no evidence to establish 

she was negligent.
6 A-4426-16T3

"Final determinations made by the trial court sitting in a 

non-jury case are subject to a limited and well-established scope 

of review . . . ." Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150, 

169 (2011). "[W]e do not disturb the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the trial judge 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." In re State for Forfeiture of Pers. 

Weapons & Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M., 225 N.J.

487, 506 (2016) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv's Ins. Co. 

of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). The court's findings of fact 

are "binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, 

credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998)

(citation omitted). In contrast, a trial judge's "interpretation 

of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established 

facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty 

v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) (citation omitted).

Here, defendant cites Siddons v. Cook, 382 N.J. Super. 1 

(App. Div. 2005), for the proposition that she breached no legal 

duty to plaintiff. We disagree. 

In Siddons, a defendant's dishwasher hose broke, causing 

damage to a unit below. We held under the facts presented there, 

"no jury could reasonably conclude that [defendants] were 
7 A-4426-16T3

negligent for failure to inspect and/or maintain the dishwasher." 

Id. at 14. 

Siddons is distinguishable from this case. First, Siddons

was decided on a summary judgment motion, and defendant presented 

the certification of a plumber. He averred that the washer's 

plastic feed line, which split, was not visible because it was 

located underneath the dishwasher. The plumber also certified 

that the visible portion of the hose was undamaged. Ibid. In 

contrast, defendant in this case presented no testimony from the 

maintenance men who discovered and repaired the hose. The trial 

court was not obligated to accept defendant's uncorroborated 

testimony as undisputed.

Moreover, unlike the plaintiff in Siddons, this plaintiff 

presented evidence concerning the length of time the leaks existed. 

Plaintiff testified about numerous water streaks on the sheetrock 

below defendant's apartment, as well as damage from which the 

court could have inferred the leaks had occurred over a significant 

span of time. No similar evidence was adduced in Siddons. That 

is not to say the trial court here was obligated to accept 

plaintiff's testimony, but the court's decision as to whose

testimony to accept or reject fell entirely within the court's 

fact-finding function. We are not convinced the trial court's

findings were so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with 
8 A-4426-16T3

the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to 

offend the interests of justice. Rova Farms Resort, Inc., 65 N.J. 

at 484. For that reason, we will not disturb the court's

determinations.

Affirmed.