Full Text
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3955-24
ANEM SAJID MALIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KIYOSHI KUMATA,
Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________
Submitted September 16, 2026 – Decided September 28, 2026
Before Judges Smith and Zazzali-Hogan.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. DC-016493-25.
Anem Sajid Malik, self-represented appellant.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
On July 17, 2025, plaintiff Anem Sajid Malik filed a Verified Complaint
and Order to Show Cause in the Special Civil Part seeking to eject defendant
Kiyoshi Kumata from the premises. On August 6, 2025, the trial court vacated
the Order to Show Cause application without providing any oral or written
statement of reasons. It also ordered that "any relief sought shall be filed in the
Family Division." There was no oral argument. We vacate and remand because
the order does not provide a statement of reasons or refer to any reasons stated
on the record.
I.
Plaintiff co-owns a condominium unit with her husband, Ali F. Khan, who
was not a named party in the underlying action. The mortgage for the property
lists plaintiff and her husband as the borrowers. On July 15, 2024, her husband
allegedly entered into a two-year lease with defendant Kiyoshi Kumata without
plaintiff's consent. In her Special Civil Part pleadings, plaintiff mentioned that
she and her husband have been separated since August 2023 and that he has a
restraining order against her.
On August 6, 2025, the Special Civil Part judge vacated the Order to Show
Cause, stating in part, "the Court ha[s] been advised the matter should be filed
in the Family Division Part." On September 4, 2025, the judge issued a sua
sponte order noting that, "the Court having transferred this matter to the Family
Part . . . the Order to Show Cause application remains vacated." The order noted
A-3955-24
2
the Special Civil Part case was dismissed as of August 6, 2025 and "any relief
sought must be filed anew in the Family [c]ourt."
II.
Our ability to resolve an appeal is largely dependent on the trial court's
compliance with its Rule 1:7-4 obligation to "'state clearly [its] factual findings
and correlate them with relevant legal conclusions, so that parties and the
appellate courts [are] informed of the rationale underlying th[ose]
conclusion[s].'" Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. 574, 594-95
(App. Div. 2016). Without a statement of reasons, "we are left to conjecture as
to what the judge may have had in mind." Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441,
443 (App. Div. 1990).
Plaintiff is seeking a tenant's removal, contending her husband had no
right to lease the property without her consent. Nothing in the record evidences
what if any matters are pending between plaintiff and her husband in the Family
court. We further note defendant in the Special Civil Part matter may not be
subject to the Family court's jurisdiction even if there are pending or future
actions filed in that court. Nor is there any formal order transferring plaintiff's
action to the Family Part as the judge stated in his August 6, 2025 Order. Rather,
A-3955-24
3
in a September 4, 2025 Order, without any apparent notice to plaintiff, the judge
dismissed plaintiff's Special Civil Part action.
Based on the absence of any fact findings and legal conclusions, we are
unable to determine if the judge's dismissal of plaintiff's Special Civil Part action
was correct. While we recognize the significant number of cases heard in the
Special Civil Part, judges are required to comply with Rule 1:7-4 to ensure that
the litigants and the public understand the reason for a decision. We take no
position on the outcome of the remanded proceeding.
Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3955-24
4