# LISA PATRUNO VS. LISA PETRICK (DC-002349-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

> New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · November 9, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5124563

## Case

- **Court:** New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
- **Decided:** November 9, 2021
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5124563

## Opinion 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0953-20

LISA PATRUNO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LISA PETRICK and KIM
BROWN,

Defendants-Respondents.
__________________________

Submitted October 26, 2021 – Decided November 9, 2021

Before Judges Fisher and Smith.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. DC-002349-20.

Lisa Patruno, appellant pro se.

Respondents did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

In March 2019, plaintiff Lisa Patruno leased a Bradley Beach residence to

defendants Lisa Petrick and Kim Brown. As the one-year lease ended in March
2020, plaintiff sued defendants for unpaid rent, and defendants counterclaimed

for the return of their security deposit and the reimbursement of other expenses

they incurred. The judge considered the parties' testimony and arguments during

a one-day hearing and, at its conclusion, rendered an oral decision, finding

defendants were due the return of their $3,774 security deposit, which he

doubled pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1. The judge also found defendants

entitled to reimbursement for a $336.64 electric bill and a $181.18 water bill.

The judge entered judgment in defendants' favor for $8,215.82, a figure which

included court costs.

Plaintiff appeals, arguing only that the judge failed to consider evidence

that defendants had failed to pay the March 2020 rent. Defendants acknowledged

they did not pay that month's rent but instead withheld it to answer for the

damages they had incurred. We agree the judge made no finding about whether

any or all of the March 2020 rent was owed plaintiff and, without offering or

intimating any view about the parties' competing allegations in that regard, we

remand for findings on this point and for the judge's determination, based on

that finding, whether an adjustment to the amount awarded is necessary.

Remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. The

trial judge may, if it would be helpful to a full consideration of the remanded

A-0953-20
2
issue, reopen the record and take additional testimony or evidence. We do not

retain jurisdiction.

A-0953-20
3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5124563. Public record. Not legal advice.