Yao Ren v. David M. Coelho

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0481-25 YAO REN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID M. COELHO, Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted September 15, 2025 – Decided October 1, 2026 Before Judges Gilson and DeAngelis. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. DC-000791-25. Yao Ren, self-represented appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM Plaintiff appeals from a June 25, 2025, no cause verdict after a bench trial and an August 22, 2025 order denying his motion for reconsideration. Based on the applicable standard of review, we affirm. On June 25, 2025, the trial court conducted a bench trial addressing plaintiff's claims arising out of a December 21, 2024 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleged he had been operating his motor vehicle on Morris Avenue, Millburn, New Jersey, and approached a signal-controlled intersection. Plaintiff testified that when the signal turned green he proceeded through the intersection and hit the rear bumper of defendant's motor vehicle. He claimed the evidence supported his version that his right bumper was torn off by a protruding left-rear bumper on defendant's vehicle. According to plaintiff defendant did not have the right of way when the accident occurred and defendant's actions resulted in damage to plaintiff's motor vehicle. Plaintiff repeatedly asserted the accident occurred at a controlled intersection with separate signals, and that plaintiff was making a left turn on green while defendant's straight-through movement on Route 124 faced a red light. Most of plaintiff's trial testimony was in response to the court's questions. Defendant testified that he was headed west on Route 124 towards Short Hills when the accident occurred. The parties provided the court with A-0481-25 2 photographs of the intersection that plaintiff confirmed was accurate. The court reviewed the photographs and arguments from defense counsel in analyzing whether defendant had a red traffic signal at the intersection where the accident occurred. The court relied on the evidence demonstrating that defendant had the right of way because he was traveling straight and plaintiff was making a left turn across Morris Avenue. Further, the court found that defendant did not travel through a red traffic signal. The court also had the opportunity to review the police report containing statements from both parties. According to the report: [Plaintiff] stated that he proceeded to make a left turn when his light turned green, however [defendant] came from his right side and struck his vehicle. [Defendant] stated he was driving straight on Rt. 124 WB when [plaintiff] began making a left turn. [Defendant] stated he swerved to avoid a collision, however he was unable to. The report stated neither party received a summons as a result of the accident. After reviewing the photographs, police report, and testimony of the parties, the court found that plaintiff caused the accident and dismissed the complaint against defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for A-0481-25 3 reconsideration claiming that the court did not review all the evidence. On August 22, 2025, the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Our scope of review after a bench trial is limited. Final determinations of a trial court "premised on the testimony of witnesses and written evidence at a bench trial" are deferentially reviewed. D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013). "Findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (citation omitted). "[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[.]" Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting Rova Farms, 65 N.J. at 484 ). We will "not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence." Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Middletown, 399 N.J. Super. 486, 498 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997)). Here, the court's decision was based on the parties' testimony and documentary evidence entered at trial. While defendant's testimony was limited, A-0481-25 4 plaintiff was permitted to present his case to the court. The court specifically questioned plaintiff about the photographs and whether defendant was traveling through a red light. After weighing the evidence, the court determined plaintiff caused the accident and defendant had no liability to plaintiff for the damages to his vehicle. In accordance with our deferential standard of review of a judge's decision in a bench trial, we discern no legal or factual basis to disturb the judge's findings, which are supported by adequate and credible evidence. Rule 4:49-2 governs the grant or denial of a motion for reconsideration. To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must "state with specificity the basis on which [the motion] is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred[.]" Ibid. "[T]he decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests within the sound discretion of the trial court." Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015). "Reconsideration should be used only where '1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent A-0481-25 5 evidence.'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)). "Thus, a trial court's reconsideration decision will be left undisturbed unless it represents a clear abuse of discretion." Ibid. (citing Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994)). We conclude that the court properly denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The statement of reasons contained in the August 22, 2025 order stated as follows: Plaintiff fails to provide a basis upon which Plaintiff believed this Court erred or pointed to any evidence Plaintiff believed this Court overlooked per Rule 4:49- 2. Additionally, this Court considered all evidence during trial on June 25 th, 2025. It was clear to the Court from a review of the evidence, including but not limited to Plaintiff's description of the accident, that the accident was his fault. The Court repeatedly on the record attempted to explain how and why the accident was Plaintiff's fault but he refused to accept the finding of the Court. [(Citation reformatted).] Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis for disturbing the court's decision on reconsideration. The record shows that plaintiff continued to repeat the same arguments he made at trial despite being presented with contrary evidence, and that the court weighed all the evidence and testimony. There is no showing that A-0481-25 6 the court failed to consider or appreciate the evidence, or that it misapprehended the law. In short, plaintiff has not shown that the court clearly abused its discretion. Affirmed. A-0481-25 7