SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3499-17T4

SIAKA KROMAH,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KATELYN KAGAN and

USMAN RAHEEL,

Defendants-Appellants.

Submitted February 25, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Gooden Brown and Rose.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Morris County, Docket No. SC-000079-18.

Bell & Shivas, PC, attorneys for appellants (Brian C. 

Laskiewicz and Joseph J. Bell, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Siaka Kromah filed a small claims complaint against defendants 

Katelyn Kagan and Usman Raheel, his former roommates, claiming defendants 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 19, 2019
2

A-3499-17T4

stole personal property from his room. Following a non-jury trial on March 22, 

2018, the judge awarded plaintiff $3042, representing the jurisdictional amount 

claimed and $42 for court costs. Because plaintiff failed to prove damages, we 

reverse. 

None of the parties was represented by counsel at the trial. Only the 

parties testified. 

Pertinent to this appeal, plaintiff and defendants shared an apartment for 

several months. Although plaintiff and Raheel had been friends before plaintiff 

moved in, the relationship between the parties eventually soured. On January 

27, 2018, just days before plaintiff's $750 share of February's rent was due, 

plaintiff texted defendants that he was moving out. An altercation ensued, and 

defendants would not permit plaintiff and his cousin to enter the apartment to 

remove plaintiff's belongings. Police were called to the scene, and prevented 

plaintiff from entering the premises. Plaintiff then called his girlfriend and her 

father, who removed plaintiff's belongings from his room. Kagan testified that 

"an officer s[tood] right outside the [unspecified] door the whole time." 

Plaintiff testified that defendants stole six pairs of "collective" sneakers, 

an Amazon Fire television stick, Beats stereo headphones, and jerseys from his 

room on the day he moved out of the apartment. When plaintiff moved into his 
3

A-3499-17T4

new residence, he realized some of his belongings were missing. Plaintiff 

claimed he last saw the items the night before the incident. He also stated, 

without objection, that his girlfriend and her father did not see the items during 

the move. Plaintiff did not testify to nor introduce any documents in evidence 

establishing the value of the property.

Defendants vehemently denied the allegations. They also maintained they 

did not enter plaintiff's room, and did not see, touch, or take plaintiff's items 

from the room. Specifically, Raheel testified, "The only people that went into 

his room, w[ere plaintiff's] girlfriend and h[er] dad. The officer was there at all 

times. Nobody went into his room. We told [the] officer, he can come into our 

house and check the whole house if he wants to." 

At the conclusion of testimony, the trial judge rendered a terse oral 

decision as follows:

Listen. These are tough cases. It’s . . . one person’s 

word against the other. I don’t know -- I’d like to say I 

can believe everybody but I can’t. I can’t believe that 

. . . [plaintiff] . . . would have all these things one day 

and the next day, he wouldn’t. So I believe he’s 

accurate. I believe [plaintiff] over [defendants] and I’m 

giving [plaintiff] a judgment for $3,000[,] . . . [plus 

$]42 [in court] costs [for a total $]3,042 judgment . . . . 

This appeal followed. 

On appeal, defendants present the following points for our consideration:
4

A-3499-17T4

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT DECISION BELOW SHOULD BE 

REVERSED BECAUSE THE DECISION IS 

UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED 

AT TRIAL AS [PLAINTIFF] FAILED TO PROVE THE 

ELEMENTS OF CIVIL THEFT AND [DEFENDANTS]' 

TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THE VERACITY OF 

THEIR ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS.

POINT II

ALTERNATIVELY, THIS MATTER SHOULD BE 

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL 

BELOW BECAUSE THE RECORD IS INCOMPLETE.

We will not set aside the trial court's findings of fact "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." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 

484 (1974). Our deference to the trial court's factual findings "is especially 

appropriate when the evidence is largely testimonial and involves questions of 

credibility." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). "Because a trial court hears the case, sees and observes the 

witnesses, and hears them testify, it has a better perspective than a reviewing 

court in evaluating the veracity of the witnesses." Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 

S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011). However, the "trial court's interpretation of 
5

A-3499-17T4

the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not 

entitled to any special deference[,]" and thus are subject to our de novo review. 

Mountain Hill, LLC v. Twp. Comm. of Middletown, 403 N.J. Super. 146, 193 

(App. Div. 2008) (citation omitted).

Here, other than determining plaintiff was more credible than defendants, 

the trial judge failed to make any factual findings or conclusions of law contrary 

to Rule 1:7-4(a), mandating, in pertinent part, that "in all actions tried without a 

jury" the court "shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or 

oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon." As long recognized 

by our Supreme Court, the trial court must clearly state "its factual findings and 

correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions[,]" as "[n]aked conclusions 

do not satisfy the purpose of Rule 1:7-4." Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 570 

(1980); see also Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. 574, 594-95 

(App. Div. 2016). "Failure to make explicit findings and clear statements of 

reasoning [impedes meaningful appellate review and] 'constitutes a disservice 

to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court.'" Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 

414, 428 (2015) (quoting Curtis, 83 N.J. at 569-70). Notwithstanding that 

evidence rules may be relaxed and the procedure may be generally informal in 

the small claims section of the trial court, "critical facts must be proved and not 
6

A-3499-17T4

merely assumed." Triffin v. Quality Urban Hous. Partners, 352 N.J. Super. 538, 

543 (App. Div. 2002). 

Against that legal backdrop, we turn to the allegations set forth in 

plaintiff's complaint. Although, as defendants allude to on appeal, the judge did

not determine plaintiff's cause of action in his decision, defendants correctly 

"characterized [plaintiff's complaint] as stating a civil cause of action for 

conversion."

 "The common law tort of conversion is defined as the intentional exercise 

of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right 

of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the 

full value of the chattel." Bondi v. Citigroup, Inc., 423 N.J. Super. 377, 431 

(App. Div. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The elements of 

conversion are: (1) "the property and right to immediate possession thereof 

belong to the plaintiff;" and (2) "the wrongful act of interference with that right 

by the defendant." First Nat'l Bank v. North Jersey Trust Co., 18 N.J. Misc. 449, 

452 (1940).

Particularly relevant here, damages flowing from a conversion action are 

measured by "the fair market value of the converted chattel at the time of 

conversion by the defendant, with interest from the date of conversion." Model 
7

A-3499-17T4

Jury Charges (Civil), 8.41(A), "Conversion" (approved Mar. 2010). "Fair 

market value is defined as the price which would be agreed upon in good faith 

negotiations between a willing seller without any compulsion to sell and a 

willing buyer without any compulsion to buy under usual and ordinary 

circumstances." Ibid.

Further, we have consistently held that the owner of an article of personal 

property is competent to testify as to his estimate of the property's value and that 

the extent of its probative value is for the consideration of the factfinder. See

Lane v. Oil Delivery, Inc., 216 N.J. Super. 413, 419 (App. Div. 1987). If an 

item is brand new, proof of the item's original cost may sustain an owner's 

burden of proof as to value. Id. at 420; see also State v. Romero, 95 N.J. Super. 

482, 487 (App. Div. 1967). 

Ordinarily, we might remand this matter for the judge to set forth the 

reasons for his opinion. See, e.g., Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337, 347 (App. 

Div. 1996). However, the record here is devoid of any evidence of the fair 

market value of plaintiff's personal items on the date that defendants allegedly 

converted them. Plaintiff failed to testify as to the value of the missing items, 

or provide receipts of purchase, approximate dates of purchase, the condition of 

each item, photographs, or any other evidence from which the judge could have 
8

A-3499-17T4

properly deduced the fair market value of the property. In fact, plaintiff neve r 

alleged any monetary value, whatsoever, for any of the alleged stolen items, 

other than the aggregate jurisdictional amount of $3,000 stated in his complaint. 

Rather, the trial judge determined damages for an unspecified cause of 

action, from his own personal knowledge that some of the items were costly. 

For example, during colloquy with Kagan, the judge stated, "I know from my 

kids, sneakers are very expensive." Likewise, he "kn[e]w" that "[a] fire stick, 

clothes . . . [and] Beats stereo headphones. . . . are very expensive." Although 

it may be inferred from that colloquy that the judge determined plaintiff's 

damages exceeded the jurisdictional amount of $3,000, a trial judge's colloquy 

during a hearing is not a substitute for the judge's obligation to articulate 

findings of facts and conclusions of law. Pardo v. Dominquez, 382 N.J. Super. 

489, 492 (App. Div. 2006). Nor should the judge "fill in missing information 

on [his] own." New Jersey Dept. of Children and Families, Div. of Youth and 

Family Services v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1, 28 (2013).

Moreover, an award of damages must be calculated with reasonable 

certainty and should not be based upon "mere speculation." Caldwell v. Haynes, 

136 N.J. 422, 442 (1994). While precision in such calculations is not essential, 

the trial record should provide a sufficient "foundation which will enable the 
9

A-3499-17T4

trier of the facts to make a fair and reasonable estimate." Id. at 436; see also

Lewis v. Read, 80 N.J. Super. 148, 174 (App. Div. 1963) ("The law abhors 

damages based upon mere speculation."). In this case, plaintiff did not establish 

the requisite foundation to support the judge's award.

In sum, while we do not disagree with the trial judge that small claims 

matters can be "tough cases[,]" his oral opinion sets forth no legal or factual 

analysis, other than a cursory credibility determination that he believed plaintiff 

would have possession of the items on "one day" but not on "the next day." 

Because our de novo review of the record leads us to conclude plaintiff did not 

establish damages at all, let alone with reasonable certainty, we are constrained 

to reverse the judgment. 

Reversed.