Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1487-25 87 NEWKIRK HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TAMIKA DALEY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________ Submitted September 30, 2026 – Decided October 21, 2026 Before Judges Mayer and Smith. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. LT-006541-25. Tamika Daley, self-represented appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM Defendant Tamika Daley (tenant) appeals from a November 6, 2025 judgment for possession in favor of plaintiff 87 Newkirk Holdings, LLC (landlord). We dismiss the appeal as moot. We recite the facts from the tenancy trial held on November 6, 2025. At the one-day bench trial, tenant was self-represented and landlord appeared with counsel. A representative for landlord and tenant were the only witnesses who testified. Tenant leased an apartment in a building previously owned by Nandar Group (Nandar). She paid $858 per month to lease the apartment. Landlord purchased the building from Nandar with the intention of demolishing it and constructing a new building. Based on this plan, landlord and tenant executed a June 19, 2023 agreement for tenant to relocate to a new apartment complex owned by Nandar (agreement). The agreement provided tenant would receive $40,000, covering moving expenses, and a monthly rent credit for a two-year period, reducing her rent from $3,600 per month to $858 per month. The agreement was to start on July 1, 2023. After the two-year period, tenant's monthly rent would increase and reflect the actual market value rent of $3,600 per month. After entering into the agreement, landlord and tenant negotiated a written lease for the new apartment. Tenant submitted a list of requested changes to the new lease. The most significant change was tenant's request that rent remain at $858 per month rather than $3,600 per month upon expiration of the agreement. Landlord rejected tenant's requested changes. A-1487-25 2 Tenant signed a new lease, dated July 14, 2023, reflecting $3,600 in monthly rent with tenant to receive a monthly credit of $2,742 from June 30, 2023, to June 30, 2025. Additionally, tenant received the moving expense check pursuant to the agreement. For the two-year period governed by the agreement, tenant satisfied her $858 monthly rent obligation. In April 2025, prior to the expiration of the July 2023 lease, landlord sent tenant a lease renewal reflecting increased rent at $3,200 per month.1 Tenant declined to sign the lease renewal and remained in the apartment after the expiration of the July 2023 lease. Tenant continued to pay $858 per month to landlord rather than the increased rent amount. On July 17, 2025, landlord filed an eviction action for a judgment of possession based on tenant's non-payment of rent. At trial, landlord's representative testified about the agreement with tenant, landlord's payment of $41,287 to tenant for moving expenses, negotiations for the new apartment lease, the July 2023 lease executed by tenant, and the lease renewal. The representative explained tenant's rental payment for the new apartment would be $858 per month for two years and would then increase to market value rent of $3,600 per month. According to the representative, landlord agreed to a two- 1 Notwithstanding that market value rent for tenant's apartment was $3,600 per month, landlord was willing to rent the apartment to tenant for $3,200 per month. A-1487-25 3 year rent credit for the new apartment so tenant could "find another apartment that was a better fit for her price range." As of the trial date, landlord's representative testified tenant owed $16,015.10 in unpaid rent and late fees. Tenant testified she never agreed to pay rent to landlord more than $858 per month. The judge asked if tenant expected to pay $858 forever, and tenant responded, "[n]ot forever." The judge then asked tenant why the July 2023 lease gave her two years of below market rate rent for a brand-new apartment. Tenant testified her "back was against the wall," and that she moved into the new apartment because she felt pressured to do so. Additionally, tenant argued landlord violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -233, by engaging in unconscionable commercial practices. Tenant also asserted she reasonably relied on landlord's "clear and definitive promise" to accept $858 representing monthly rent and landlord should be estopped from increasing the rent to $3,200 per month. Tenant also requested the judge allow her to remain in the apartment, continue to pay $858 per month in rent, and dismiss landlord's eviction action. On cross-examination and through the judge's questioning, tenant admitted she signed the July 2023 lease. However, tenant maintained she never agreed to pay more than $858 per month in rent. A-1487-25 4 The judge found landlord's representative testified credibly and concluded the agreement signed by landlord and tenant constituted a legally binding contract. Under the agreement, the judge noted landlord agreed to pay tenant $41,287, which it did. Further, the judge determined the agreement unambiguously provided tenant would receive a two-year lease for her new apartment, paying only $858 per month in rent even though the monthly market value rent was $3,600. The judge also found tenant received a rental credit in the amount of $2,742 per month for two years. Because tenant admitted she had access to landlord's online account ledger, the judge concluded tenant knew she received two years of rent credit per the agreement. Landlord's eviction action sought only a judgment of possession based on tenant's non-payment of rent. The judge explained the trial was limited to determining whether to enter a judgment of possession for landlord. The judge specifically stated she was not awarding "a money judgment" to landlord for any purportedly unpaid rent and that landlord would be required to file a separate action to obtain a money judgment against tenant. On November 6, 2025, the judge entered a judgment of possession, finding tenant failed to pay all rent due and owing. The judge explained on the record and in the written judgment that if tenant paid all rent due and owing, totaling $17,890.10 according to the judge's calculation, within three days after the A-1487-25 5 scheduled lockout, tenant could move to dismiss the judgment of possession with prejudice. Five days after entry of the judgment for possession, landlord applied for a warrant of removal against tenant. Upon issuance of the warrant of removal, tenant moved out of the apartment. Tenant appealed. On appeal, tenant argues the judge erred because tenant disputed any obligation to pay more than $858 in rent per month for the new apartment. Tenant further claims the judge failed to "harmonize" the agreement, the July 2023 lease, and landlord's various emails related to the new apartment. Landlord did not file a merits brief. However, landlord's attorney filed a "letter of communication" asserting tenant's appeal was moot because tenant vacated the apartment. Tenant argues the appeal is not moot because "the judgment remains of record and carries ongoing legal consequences." She claims "the [j]udgment of [p]ossession continues to have operative legal effect." However, tenant fails to identify the "legal consequences" or "operative legal effect" arising from the November 6, 2025 judgment of possession. Nothing in the record evidences any residual legal consequences for tenant in this case. In landlord-tenant right to possession cases, our courts hold that appeals are moot if the tenant has lost possession and a new tenant has moved into the A-1487-25 6 apartment. Courts do not "resolve issues that have become moot due to the passage of time or intervening events." Wisniewski v. Murphy, 454 N.J. Super. 508, 518 (App. Div. 2018) (citing State v. Davila, 443 N.J. Super. 577, 584 (App. Div. 2016)). A court's ability to consider the right to possession of an apartment is limited once "the tenant vacate[s] the premises and the premises have been re-rented." Daoud v. Mohammad, 402 N.J. Super. 57, 61 (App. Div. 2008). In Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J. Super. 246, 254 (App. Div. 2005), we concluded the plaintiff's appeal was not moot because the judgment for possession decreased the tenant's Section 8 housing subsidy and, therefore, had actual residual legal consequence. In that case, we reversed the judgment for possession but did not grant repossession because that would displace the innocent third-party resident occupying the apartment. Ibid. Here, the only order on appeal is the November 6, 2025 judgment for possession. Like the plaintiff in Daoud, tenant no longer has possession of the apartment and a new tenant has moved in. Additionally, tenant did not articulate any specific "residual consequences" potentially flowing from the entry of the judgment of possession. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied tenant's appeal is moot. A-1487-25 7 Even if we did not consider the appeal to be moot, we would affirm the November 6, 2025 judgment for possession. We are required to defer to a trial court's findings of fact in a bench trial. Balducci v. Cige, 240 N.J. 574, 595 (2020). In a non-jury trial, we "give deference to the trial court that heard the witnesses, sifted the competing evidence, and made reasoned conclusions." Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239, 254 (2015). Here, the judge heard testimony from landlord's representative and tenant. The judge rendered credibility findings based on her ability to see and hear the witnesses and to review the documents presented during the trial. She also rendered findings of fact consistent with the evidence adduced at trial. Based on well-settled case law, we would defer to the judge's entry of a judgment of possession based on her fact findings and her legal conclusions flowing from those findings. Dismissed as moot. A-1487-25 8