SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4482-18T2

VICTORIA HOLMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DAVID MANDELBAUM,

and TOWNE GARDENS INC.,

Defendants-Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted April 22, 2020 – Decided May 12, 2020

Before Judges Fuentes, Mayer and Enright. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. DC-5819-19.

Victoria Holmes, appellant pro se.

Ehrlich Petriello Gudin & Plaza, attorneys for 

respondents (Kevin Girish Desai, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4482-18T2

Plaintiff Victoria Holmes appeals from the dismissal of her complaint 

against defendants Towne Gardens, Inc. (TGI) and TGI's shareholder, David 

Mandelbaum. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Jeffrey 

B. Beacham in his oral opinion of May 24, 2019.

The procedural history and factual background of this matter are outlined

in our February 6, 2020 opinion from plaintiff's appeal under Docket No. A2460-18. Therefore, we provide only a brief overview.

Plaintiff and her family resided at TGI's multi-family property in South 

Orange for more than ten years. In December 2018, TGI instituted a summary 

dispossess action against plaintiff based on her failure to pay rent for three 

consecutive months. At trial, plaintiff did not contest she owed rent for the 

months of October, November and December 2018, or January and February 

2019. Rather, plaintiff alleged TGI did not have standing to file the summary 

dispossess proceeding. The trial judge rejected her standing argument and 

entered a judgment of possession in TGI's favor in the sum of $8256, inclusive 

of rent and fees owed. Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved before the trial court to 

vacate this judgment. 
3

A-4482-18T2

On February 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking reversal 

of the judgment of possession. She also moved to stay the eviction. We denied 

the stay and plaintiff was evicted from her apartment on February 28, 2019. 

On February 6, 2020, we affirmed TGI's judgment of possession, rejecting

plaintiff's argument that TGI lacked standing. In doing so, we agreed with the 

trial court that TGI owned the subject premises and was authorized to collect 

rent from plaintiff and pursue eviction proceedings. 

On March 22, 2019, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in the instant 

appeal. She sought $15,000 in damages, based on the following allegations: 

"Unlawful [and] illegal eviction and judgement. Violated rights 31 U.S. Code 

3802. Unlawful acts which resulted to obtaining [two] police reports. Court 

[h]earing filed under fictitious fict[itious] name." TGI and Mandelbaum moved 

to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). 

On May 24, 2019, Judge Beacham conducted oral argument on 

defendants' dismissal motion. Plaintiff testified that her eviction was retaliatory 

and stemmed from previous complaints that she lodged with local authorities 

about the habitability of her apartment. She also conceded she had no personal 

conversations with Mandelbaum but had "sent certified mail directly" to him

regarding her tenancy. 
4

A-4482-18T2

Defendants' counsel argued plaintiff failed to plead facts in sufficient 

detail to hold either defendant liable and that to the extent plaintiff alleged fraud, 

her allegations lacked specificity, contrary to Rule 4:5-8. Defendants' counsel 

also highlighted plaintiff's concession that she had no personal interaction with 

Mandelbaum other than sending mail to him. 

Following oral argument, Judge Beacham dismissed plaintiff's complaint 

against Mandelbaum with prejudice and her complaint against TGI without 

prejudice, due to plaintiff's pending appeal under Docket No. A-2460-18. On 

the instant appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred by granting defendants' 

dismissal motion. We disagree. 

A court must dismiss a complaint if a plaintiff has failed to articulate a 

legal basis entitling that party to relief. Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J. Super. 

100, 106 (App. Div. 2005) (citing Camden County Energy Recovery Assocs., 

L.P. v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 320 N.J. Super. 59, 64 (App. Div. 

1999)). "A motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted must be evaluated in light of the legal 

sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint." Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. 

Super. 475, 482 (App. Div. 2005). A plaintiff is obliged "not to prove the case 

but only to make allegations, which, if proven, would constitute a valid cause of 
5

A-4482-18T2

action." Leon v. Rite Aid Corp., 340 N.J. Super. 462, 472 (App. Div. 2001).

When considering a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss, a trial court must 

thoroughly review a complaint to see if a cause of action can be gleaned even 

from obscure statements. 

We review a motion to dismiss under the same standard as the trial court,

considering and accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint, to determine 

whether a plaintiff has advanced a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Sickles, 379 N.J. Super. at 106 (citing Donato, 374 N.J. Super. at 483). 

Given our standard of review, we perceive no reason to disturb Judge 

Beacham's May 24, 2019 order. The record provides ample evidence to support 

the judge's findings that there was no legal basis for plaintiff to recover against 

Mandelbaum and that she had no cognizable claim against TGI. 

To the extent we have not addressed plaintiff's other arguments, we 

conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.