SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3170-15T3

ANTHONY REEVES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAWRENCE NON-PROFIT

HOUSING, INC., 

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________

Submitted October 17, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Gilson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket 

No. L-2675-15.

Anthony Reeves, appellant pro se.

Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, PC, 

attorneys for respondent (Stuart A. Tucker, 

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Anthony Reeves, a former tenant of Eggerts Crossing 

Village (ECV), appeals from a March 4, 2016 order dismissing his 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 1, 2017
2 A-3170-15T3

complaint against ECV's owner, defendant Lawrence Non-Profit 

Housing, Inc.

Our review of the summary judgment order is de novo. See

Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405-06 (2012). 

Our independent review of the record convinces us that there are 

no material facts in dispute and defendant was entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law.1 Ibid. Accordingly, we affirm.

The following facts are derived from the certification of 

ECV's site manager, which is the only legally competent evidence 

in the motion record. ECV is a 100-unit housing complex, in which 

60 units are market rate and 40 units are subsidized by the Federal 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Plaintiff's 

name was placed on the waiting list for a HUD-subsidized unit. 

However, in the meantime, he signed a lease for a market rate 

apartment. Because plaintiff was living on General Assistance at 

the time, the Mercer County Board of Social Services (Board) 

 

1 The trial court failed make to findings of fact and conclusions 

of law as required by Rule 1:7-4(a) and Rule 4:46-2(c). Instead, 

the court issued a three sentence oral opinion stating that even 

if the court assumed the truth of plaintiff's factual claims 

"there's still no legal merit to the claims you have in your 

complaint which are for discrimination, prevention of Homelessness 

Act and fraud." Even in a simple case, the motion court has an 

obligation to do more than listen patiently to the parties' 

arguments and then state a conclusion. Nonetheless, we do not 

order a remand because the interests of justice are better served 

by concluding this matter. 
3 A-3170-15T3

subsidized most of his rent for that apartment. At some point, 

the Board stopped subsidizing plaintiff's rent, apparently because 

he had begun receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits. 

In December 2014, defendant filed a summary dispossess 

action, based on non-payment of rent. That action was dismissed 

after the Board agreed to pay the back rent. However, the Board 

did not continue to subsidize plaintiff's rent, and defendant 

filed another landlord-tenant action in October 2015, by which 

time plaintiff's arrears were over $4700. At that point, plaintiff 

was still only number three on the waiting list for a HUDsubsidized apartment. He could not raise the funds to pay the 

arrears, and defendant obtained judgment for possession. 

Plaintiff voluntarily moved out of the apartment on December 10, 

2015.

Meanwhile, on November 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint 

against defendant in the Law Division, asserting that the landlord 

violated the lease, incorrectly computed his rent, committed 

unspecified "fraud," committed discrimination under the Law 

Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g), and violated the 

Prevention of Homelessness Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-280, which 

provides funds to subsidize housing for the poor. 

Based on the undisputed summary judgment evidence, plaintiff 

could not establish any of those claims as a matter of law. The 
4 A-3170-15T3

evidence establishes that he was unable to pay his rent, not 

because of any wrongdoing by the landlord but because the Board 

stopped subsidizing his rent. There is no evidence that he offered 

to pay the arrears and the landlord refused to accept the money. 

Nor is there any evidence that the landlord refrained from evicting 

non-disabled delinquent tenants, or otherwise discriminated 

against plaintiff on account of his disability or because his rent 

was subsidized by the Board. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g) (prohibiting 

landlords from discriminating based on disability or lawful income 

source). 

On this appeal, plaintiff contends that the landlord refused 

to accept the rent when he offered to pay it, refused to put him 

on the HUD waiting list, and discriminated against him because he 

received a public subsidy for his rent in violation of N.J.S.A.

2A:42-100. See Franklin Tower One LLC v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602, 605-

06 (1999). As previously noted, the undisputed evidence submitted 

on the summary judgment motion does not support any of those 

claims. Accordingly, we affirm the March 4, 2016 order granting 

summary judgment. 

Affirmed.