23-41 Smith Street LLC v. Ricky Kamden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0108-25 23-41 SMITH STREET LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICKY KAMDEN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted September 17, 2026 – Decided September 28, 2026 Before Judges Chase and Augostini. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. LT-004473-25. Ricky Kamden, self-represented appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM In this landlord-tenant matter, appellant Ricky Kamden (tenant) appeals from two Special Civil Part orders: (1) July 25, 2025 denying without prejudice his motion to dismiss plaintiff 23-41 Smith Street LLC's (landlord) eviction complaint for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) August 11, 2025 releasing $6,000 to plaintiff. Because defendant failed to provide a necessary transcript for the issues before us, we dismiss the appeal. I. On September 11, 2024, the parties entered a one-year lease agreement for an apartment located in Irvington. On March 14, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint for eviction 1 seeking a judgment of possession for tenant's non- payment of rent of $9,455 as of April 1, 2025. On April 11, 2025, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Rule 4:6- 2(a). On May 27, 2025, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and set forth its reasons on the record. 2 Trial on plaintiff's complaint was rescheduled on various dates. On June 27, 2025, the court scheduled a habitability hearing for July 14 and entered a "Marini"3 order requiring defendant to deposit $1,500 1 Plaintiff filed a previous complaint for eviction against defendant for nonpayment of rent. The trial court entered default judgment on January 13, 2025, after defendant did not appear for trial. Defendant appealed, and we reversed and remanded the matter for a new trial. 23-41 Smith St. LLC v. Kamden, No. A-2511-24 (App. Div. 2026). 2 The record on appeal does not contain the May 27, 2025 order, nor the transcript from the May 27 hearing. 3 Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130, 144 (1970). A-0108-25 2 with the court "by the 5th day of each month beginning with the month of July. . . ." Defendant was directed to provide plaintiff with access to the apartment for inspection and repairs to the property on June 30. According to the record, the "habitability trial" scheduled for July 14 was cancelled. On July 25, 2025, the court issued an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice "for the reasons set forth on May 27, 2025 [,] on the record." On August 11, 2025, in response to the court, defendant confirmed he had withdrawn the Marini defense but was "still stand[ing] by the jurisdiction defense." The court responded it had "resolved that [m]otion already" and had "denied it." Defendant replied, "without prejudice" and the court stated, "you have [a]ppeal rights." The court concluded: THE COURT: I'm going to deny your [m]otion to [d]ismiss for the reasons that I just stated — [TENANT]: Yeah THE COURT: — and also, because of the reasons that I stated on May 27, unless there's anything you'd like to say counsel. Additionally, in my [o]rder dated [June 27], scheduling the Marini hearing, it indicates that the money was deposited into [c]ourt and it was. I'm going to enter the [o]rder releasing the funds to [plaintiff] and this case will be dismissed. A-0108-25 3 [TENANT]: Hold on . . . one minute. I have not finished [m]y defense. THE COURT: I am finished. That is my decision. Thank you. On appeal, defendant raises two contentions for our consideration: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over defendant because plaintiff did not produce a valid certificate of registration for the property from which it sought to evict tenant; and (2) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff because the validity of the monetary obligation ($6,000) was the subject of separate litigation in the Law Division. 4 II. During the pendency of this appeal, the Appellate Division Clerk informed defendant the May 27, 2025 hearing transcript was necessary to decide the issue before us on appeal because the trial court put its oral reasons for denial of the motion to dismiss on the record. Defendant responded he was "unable to authenticate the [a]udio" of the hearing and was unable to pay for the transcript. 4 Defendant contends the separate litigation he filed against plaintiff in the Law Division seeking monetary damages for plaintiff's alleged breach of contract and "NJ Housing Code" violation claims deprived the Special Civil Part of jurisdiction over this matter. A-0108-25 4 A stenographic transcript or statement of the proceedings is an essential part of the record on appeal. See R. 2:5-4. Thus, our court rules require an appellant to serve "a transcript request form" of the relevant transcript. R. 2:5- 1(a). Unless otherwise excepted, "the transcript shall include the entire proceedings in the court . . . from which the appeal is taken, . . . unless a written statement of . . . reasons was filed by the judge." R. 2:5-3(b). The lack of a necessary transcript is the sort of deficiency, which prevents our review of trial court determinations challenged on appeal. Cipala v. Lincoln Tech. Inst., 179 N.J. 45, 55 (2004). "Failure to provide the . . . transcript is grounds for dismissal of the appeal, or at least a separable portion thereof." Pressler & Verneiro, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2 on R. 2:5-3(b), at 514 (2027) (citing Cipala, 179 N.J. at 55 ). The issue raised in this appeal as to defendant's motion to dismiss is dependent on the May 27 proceeding and the court's reasoning set forth on the record. The July 25, 2025 order relies on the court's reasoning at the May 27 hearing. However, defendant provided only the transcript of the August 11 proceedings. This precludes our meaningful de novo review of this matter. Defendant also challenges the August 11 order releasing the funds to plaintiff and argues the release of those funds violated N.J.S.A. 46:8-33, which A-0108-25 5 prohibits the entry of a judgment for possession "[i]n any action for possession instituted by a landlord who has failed to comply with the provisions of this act . . . ." Defendant contends the court erred by releasing those funds because the court lacked jurisdiction based on plaintiff's failure to produce a valid certificate of registration. This argument harkens back to defendant's core argument as to why the Special Civil Part lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, namely, the alleged lack of a valid certificate of registration for the property at issue. Defendant also contends the Special Civil Part lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the issue of monetary damages was the subject of separate litigation he filed in the Law Division. 5 "[A] summary dispossess action does not permit either a landlord or tenant to plead a claim for damages[;]" rather, the only issue before the Special Civil Part is the landlord's right to possession. Raji v. Saucedo, 461 N.J. Super. 166 , 170 (App. Div. 2019) (internal citation omitted); see also Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 449 (2013) ("no money judgment can be awarded in the Landlord/Tenant Part"). In defense of a summary-dispossess action based on non-payment of rent, a tenant may claim 5 Defendant filed companion litigation in the Law Division on October 15, 2024, seeking monetary damages for plaintiff's alleged breach of the lease agreement and violation of the "NJ Housing Code" which caused defendant to "fall sick." A-0108-25 6 the rent is not "legally ow[ed]." Hous. Auth. of Passaic v. Torres, 143 N.J. Super. 231, 236 (App. Div. 1976). Here, defendant defended the summary-dispossess case based in part on habitability and did not claim the rent was not owed. Rather, defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction to pursue a judgment of possession because plaintiff failed to provide a valid certificate of registration. At the August 11 hearing, defendant confirmed his withdrawal of the habitability defense and stated he maintained only his "jurisdiction defense," which the court stated had already been resolved. Thus, the court released the $6,000 funds once defendant withdrew the habitability defense. Defendant's two contentions focus on the court's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the alleged invalid certificate of registration. We do not have the May 27 record of the court's reasoning for denying that motion. Because the record is incomplete, and defendant, after being notified of this deficiency, did not supply the necessary transcript, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. Dismissed. A-0108-25 7