SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2295-17T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

VINCENT R. CHILES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted March 26, 2020 – Decided April 22, 2020

Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Somerset County, Municipal Appeal No. 

18-1.

Vincent R. Chiles, appellant pro se.

Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Natacha Despinos-Peavey, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-2295-17T2

Defendant Vincent R. Chiles appeals from the November 15, 2017 order 

of the Law Division convicting him after a trial de novo of failure to observe a 

traffic signal, N.J.S.A. 39:4-81. We affirm.

I.

The following facts are derived from the record. Defendant does not 

dispute that on September 19, 2016, he was operating a vehicle traveling west 

on Route 22 in Somerset County. He admits that as he approached an 

intersection, the light turned yellow, and that he applied the brakes but was 

unable to stop the vehicle before it entered the intersection. According to 

defendant, he was unable to stop before entering the intersection because the 

road was slick. He concedes that after the vehicle entered the intersection, he 

was unable to back the vehicle out of the intersection because another vehicle 

had pulled up behind him and stopped for the then-red light.

Defendant argues his entry of the intersection did not constitute a failure 

to observe a traffic signal in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-81 because the light was

yellow, not red, when he approached and entered the intersection. In addition, 

he argues the events in question did not take place in Greenbrook Township, 

where he was ticketed and convicted. While the State contends defendant 

entered the intersection of Route 22 West and Warrenville Road, which is in 
3

A-2295-17T2

Greenbrook, defendant argues he entered the intersection of Route 22 West and 

Rock Road. That intersection is partially in Greenbrook and partially in North 

Plainfield Borough. Defendant contends he was operating his vehicle on Route 

22 West in North Plainfield when the light turned yellow and stopped his vehicle 

before it entered the portion of the intersection in Greenbrook. Thus, he argues, 

the ticketing officer, Greenbrook Police Chief Christopher Kurz, lacked 

authority to issue his citation and the Greenbrook municipal court lacked 

jurisdiction to adjudicate his violation.

Finally, defendant argues the municipal court judge, municipal 

prosecutor, and Kurz, the State's only witness, met in the judge's chambers 

shortly before the start of trial. The record does not contain a transcript of the 

alleged meeting. Defendant speculates the alleged meeting facilitated false 

testimony by Kurz with respect to the location of the incident.

During the municipal court trial, Kurz, a twenty-eight-year veteran of the 

Greenbrook Police Department, testified in detail with respect to having 

observed defendant operate his vehicle as it entered the intersection of Route 22 

West and Warrenville Road when traffic in the direction of defendant's travel 

was stopped, and opposing traffic had a green light. He testified that defendant's

vehicle was approximately two car lengths into the intersection impeding the 
4

A-2295-17T2

flow of opposing traffic attempting to turn onto Route 22 East. Kurz testified 

opposing traffic had to stop because of the location of defendant's vehicle, 

causing drivers to activate their horns. Kurz observed defendant's unsuccessful 

attempt to back his vehicle out of the intersection, leaving the vehicle about a 

car's length in the intersection. Kurz testified that based on his knowledge and 

experience, defendant was either "traveling too quickly for conditions or [was 

not] paying attention at the time that the traffic light cycled."

Defendant also testified. He denied that his entry into the intersection 

took place in Greenbrook. He also testified that his vehicle was "just a few feet 

beyond the barrier" at the intersection of Rock Road in North Plainfield when 

the light was red.

The municipal court judge, having had the opportunity to evaluate the 

testimony of the witnesses, found Kurz's testimony with respect to the 

intersection to be credible. The judge based his credibility determination, in 

part, on Kurz's twenty-eight years of experience travelling the roads of 

Greenbrook as a police office. Noting that defendant's testimony, apart from 

disputing the location of the incident, "in every other way, shape[,] or form does 

indicate a violation of" N.J.S.A. 39:4-81, the municipal court judge found 
5

A-2295-17T2

defendant violated the statute beyond a reasonable doubt. The municipal court

imposed fines and court costs.

Following a trial de novo in the Law Division, Judge Bradford M. Bury 

convicted defendant of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-81. After reviewing the 

testimony adduced in the municipal court, Judge Bury concluded there was

sufficient reliable evidence supporting the municipal court's determination that 

Kurz's identification of the location of the offense was credible. In addition,

Judge Bury found the record contained sufficient evidence on which to conclude 

defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-81. 

With respect to defendant's argument that his operation of the vehicle did not 

constitute a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-81, Judge Bury noted defendant failed to 

cite "any case law that would suggest entering the intersection by whether it's 

one car length or two car lengths, but crossing what is traditionally called the 

stop line when the traffic light is red does not constitute a violation of [N.J.S.A. 

39:4-81]".

On November 15, 2017, Judge Bury entered an order convicting defendant 

of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-81 and affirming the penalties imposed by the 

municipal court.
6

A-2295-17T2

This appeal followed. Defendant raises the following arguments for our 

consideration:

LEGAL ARGUMENT 1

I. THE GREENBROOK TOWNSHIP 

MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, M. FEDUN[,] J.M.C., 

WAS IN ERROR WHEN HE DECIDED ON MARCH 

22, 2017, THAT DEFENDANT (VINCENT R. 

CHILES) WAS GUILTY OF RUNNING A RED 

LIGHT ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2016. NO SUCH 

VIOLATION WAS COMMITTED BY THE 

DEFENDANT. SO, THE CONVICTION OF 

VIOLATING [N.J.S.A.] 39:4-81 SHOULD BE 

VACATED/DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

II. THE JUDGE LACKED JURISDICTION IN 

CONTRADICTION TO N.J.S.A. 39:5-3(c). 

ALLEGED VIOLATION OCCURRED AT ROCK 

AVENUE AT ROUTE 22 WEST, NORTH 

PLAINFIELD, NOT GREENBROOK TOWNSHIP. 

THEREFORE, JUDGE FEDUN LACKED THE 

LEGAL AUTHORITY TO RENDER A DECISION IN 

THE MATTER FOR HE LACKED JURISDICTION. 

STATE OF NJ V. MARK LIEBESKIND PAGE 15 OF 

18.

III. JUDGE, PROSECUTOR AND OFFICER 

ACTED IMPROPERLY. JUDGE FEDUN, 

PROSECUTOR GLICOS AND CHIEF KURZ ARE 

GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND TAINTING THE 

TRIAL BY MEETING IN THE JUDGE'S 

CHAMBERS FOR SEVERAL MINUTES BEFORE 

COMING OUT TO COMMENCE THE TRIAL, 

AFTER, [SIC] MY REFUSAL TO ACCEPT CHIEF 

KURZ['S] "DEAL" IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM.
7

A-2295-17T2

LEGAL ARGUMENT 2

I. THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE AT THE 

TRIAL DE NO VO [SIC] WAS WRONG IN FINDING 

THE DEFENDANT (VINCENT R. CHILES) GUILTY 

OF VIOLATING [N.J.S.A.] 39:4-81. NO SUCH 

VIOLATION WAS COMMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 

19, 2016, WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP OF 

GREENBROOK; THE CONVICTION FOR 

VIOLATING [N.J.S.A.] 39:4-81 SHOULD 

THEREFORE BE VACATED/DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE.

II.

On appeal from a municipal court to the Law Division, the review is de 

novo on the record. R. 3:23-8(a)(2). The Law Division judge must make 

independent findings of fact and conclusions of law but defers to the municipal 

court's credibility findings. State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 147 (2017).

We do not, however, independently assess the evidence. State v. Locurto, 

157 N.J. 463, 471-72 (1999). "Our standard of review of a de novo verdict after 

a municipal court trial is to determine whether the findings made could 

reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the 

record, considering the proofs as a whole." State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1, 8 

(App. Div. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The rule of deference is more compelling where, as here, the municipal 

and Law Division judges made concurrent findings. Locurto, 157 N.J. at 474. 
8

A-2295-17T2

"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to 

alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two 

lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Ibid. 

"Therefore, appellate review of the factual and credibility findings of the 

municipal court and the Law Division 'is exceedingly narrow.'" State v. Reece, 

222 N.J. 154, 167 (2015) (quoting Locurto, 157 N.J. at 470). But, "[a] trial 

court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from 

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

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

Having carefully reviewed the record in light of these precedents, we find 

no basis to overturn the credibility determinations of both the municipal court 

judge and the Law Division judge. Both judges found Kurz's testimony that 

defendant's motor vehicle violation took place at the Warrenville Road 

intersection in Greenbrook was credible. The record contains evidence of Kurz's 

twenty-eight years of experience as an officer in Greenbrook, which Judge Bury 

noted, "is not a large municipality." It was certainly reasonable for the judges 

to have concluded that Kurz would be more familiar with the roads in the 
9

A-2295-17T2

township than defendant. Notably, the ticket completed by Kurz at the time of 

the stop states the location of the offense as Warrenville Road and Route 22. 1

We also conclude the record contains ample evidence defendant violated 

N.J.S.A. 39:4-81. According to that statute "[t]he driver of every vehicle . . . 

shall obey the instruction of any official traffic control device . . . ." N.J.S.A. 

39:4-81(a). A "[r]ed" signal "means traffic to stop before entering the 

intersection . . . and remain standing until green is shown alone . . . ." N.J.S.A. 

39:4-105. Kurz, whose testimony was found credible by both judges, testified 

defendant's vehicle entered the intersection when other vehicles traveling in his 

direction were stopped and opposing traffic had a green signal. This testimony,

the obvious import of which is that defendant entered the intersection against a 

1

 We note that N.J.S.A. 39:5-3(c), which concerns prosecutions for violations 

of Title 39, provides that "[a]ll proceedings shall be brought before a judge 

having jurisdiction in the municipality in which it is alleged that the violation 

occurred, but when a violation occurs on a street through which the boundary 

line of two or more municipalities runs or crosses, then the proceeding may be 

brought before the judge having jurisdiction in any one of the municipalities

divided by said boundary line . . . ." (emphasis added). In light of our holding 

affirming the judges' findings that defendant's violation occurred in Greenbrook 

we need not decide whether Kurz and the Greenbrook municipal court would 

have had authority to adjudicate defendant's violation even if it occurred at the 

Rock Avenue intersection, through which the municipal boundary crosses at 

Route 22 West. See State v. Williams, 136 N.J. Super. 544, 551 (Law Div. 

1975) ("N.J.S.A. 39:5-3 does give a municipal policeman territorial jurisdiction 

over the entire road which forms the boundary between two neighboring 

municipalities.")
10 A-2295-17T2

red light, along with defendant's admission that his vehicle was in the 

intersection after the light turned red, was sufficient to find him guilty of a 

violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-81 beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant's argument with respect to the alleged meeting of the municipal 

court judge, municipal prosecutor, and Kurz was not raised in the municipal 

court. The transcript of the municipal court trial contains no suggestion such a 

meeting took place. Defendant's representations with respect to the meeting and 

his speculation as to what transpired in the meeting, are not supported by an 

affidavit or certification. The record before us contains no basis on which to 

disturb defendant's conviction.

Affirmed.