Floral Park Tenants Ass'n v. Project Holding, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1977
• Citation: 378 A.2d 266,152 N.J.Super. 582
• Parties: FLORAL PARK TENANTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. PROJECT HOLDING, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant. PROJECT HOLDING, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Plaintiff, and Action Committee of Floral Park, an unincorporated association, Luis Perez, John Kruft, Yolanda Gonzalez, Pedro Alvarez and Carlos Artola, Applicants for Intervention, v. Frank SMYTH et al., Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 582

152 N.J.Super. 582

378 A.2d 266

FLORAL PARK TENANTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. PROJECT HOLDING, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant.

PROJECT HOLDING, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Plaintiff,

and

Action Committee of Floral Park, an unincorporated

association, Luis Perez, John Kruft, Yolanda

Gonzalez, Pedro Alvarez and Carlos

Artola, Applicants for Intervention, v. Frank SMYTH et al., Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

July 6, 1977.

William Goldberg, Hackensack, for Floral Park Tenants Ass'n and Frank Smyth et al.

Laurence B. Orloff, Newark, for Project Holding, Inc. (Orloff, Lowenbach, Stifelman & Siegel, Newark, attorneys).

Arthur N. D'Italia, Jersey City, for Action Committee of Floral Park, Luis Perez, John Kruft, Yolanda Gonzalez, Pedro Alvarez and Carlos Artola (Chasan, Leyner, Holland & Tarrant, Jersey City, attorneys).

KENTZ, J. S. C.

Floral Park Tenants Association (Tenants Association), consisting of the tenants presently residing in Floral Park Gardens (Floral Park), ¹ filed a verified complaint and order to show cause with this court wherein the Tenants Association sought, among other things, to enjoin and restrain defendant Project Holding, Inc. (Project Holding), landlord and owner of Floral Park, from interfering with the tenants' beneficial right to use and enjoy these premises. Project Holding commenced an action by way of a complaint and an order to show cause in the Law Division seeking a declaratory judgment that members of the Tenants Association who are presently residing in Floral Park must temporarily vacate the premises during a period of substantial renovation and that N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq. (the Anti-Eviction Act) does not bar such temporary vacation. Subsequently, the Law Division action was transferred to the Chancery Division and consolidated with the Floral Park tenants' action.

Before both actions were heard by this court, leave to intervene as a plaintiff was granted to the Action Committee of Floral Park (Action Committee), consisting of tenants who have already temporarily vacated Floral Park and are awaiting to move back as soon as said premises are renovated by Project Holding.

The matter now before the court arises on cross-motions for summary judgment filed respectively by Project Holding and the Tenants Association. Project Holding sets forth several alternate legal theories for a judgment directing the tenants to vacate Floral Park temporarily or a judgment for possession. The Tenants Association contends that the Anti-Eviction Act bars this relief and that a judgment should be entered in its favor.

The undisputed facts are as follows. Project Holding is the record owner of Floral Park. The Tenants Association presently includes the remaining tenants in ten buildings on the premises, being approximately 70 families in number. Project Holding is affiliated with a group known as Applied Housing Associates (Applied Housing) which specializes in urban housing rehabilitation. Project Holding, through Applied Housing, submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a "Feasibility Application" and preliminary proposals for rehabilitation of the subject buildings. The plan was approved by HUD. It provides for those of low and moderate income to receive rental assistance to meet the higher rent resulting from rehabilitation and proper operations. HUD did agree to insure a mortgage loan to the owner from a HUD-approved mortgagee. The approved plan permits the tenants to return to the premises after relocation whether the new federally controlled rent is paid entirely by them or partly by rental assistance. Additionally, municipal approval was granted in the form of a resolution of the Township of North Bergen declaring the subject premises blighted and in need of redevelopment.

As early as June 1976 Applied Housing, on behalf of Project Holding, commenced a program of notification and education of the Floral Park tenants looking towards the goal of temporary relocation, essentially at Project Holding's expense, and an ultimate opportunity to move back into the project after the completion of the rehabilitation work. Project Holding offered reimbursement for moving expenses to decent comparable housing and a relocation benefit of $40 a month for any rent differential plus reimbursement for moving expenses back to the subject premises for those tenants who chose to return.

A substantial number of tenants agreed to and did in fact relocate, temporarily or otherwise. Only 75 of the 374 units are still occupied. The remainder of the units have been vacated by the tenants voluntarily. Five of these remaining families have agreed to vacate the premises voluntarily in the next few weeks. Accordingly, only some 70 families make up the Tenants Association which is blocking Project Holding from effecting the HUD-approved plan for rehabilitation of the premises. The remaining tenants are scattered throughout the many structures and in some instances as few as 10% of the apartments in a building are occupied.

The uncontroverted affidavits submitted by Project Holding indicate that years of neglect by prior ownership have left the buildings in a condition where only substantial demolition and renovation work can restore the structures to the status of attractive and desirable living quarters. Some of the units will be gutted and redesigned apartments will be created from the skeletal structure. There will be three and four-bedroom apartments to accommodate the larger families who are presently residing in units having no more than two bedrooms. It appears that this essential and contemplated major rehabilitation work can not reasonably be done with the tenants or their belongings remaining on the premises.

The pleadings and affidavits filed indicate that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, this matter is ripe for summary judgment. Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 110 A.2d 24 (1954).

The court, in determining whether the remaining tenants should be ordered to vacate the premises temporarily, is faced with the apparent conflict between two important state policies. On the one hand, there exists the social legislation embodied in the Anti-Eviction Act aimed at protecting tenants and their right to housing against unreasonable and arbitrary eviction. On the other hand, there exists the public policy underlying numerous state and federal statutes aimed at promoting and expediting low and moderate-income housing because of its critical shortage. It is this latter policy which Project Holding is seeking to further by the HUD-approved project of rehabilitating the Floral Park complex. ² The Tenants Association seeks to interpose a strict interpretation of the Anti-Eviction Act to prevent the temporary relocation of the tenants from their present apartments and thus effectively defeat this project. The threshold question is whether these two facially conflicting state policies are reconcilable.

Project Holding has placed the constitutionality of the Anti-Eviction Act in issue. However, it is a well established principle of constitutional adjudication that the court should not reach the constitutionality of any statute unless absolutely imperative in the disposition of the litigation. Ahto v. Weaver, 39 N.J. 418, 428, 189 A.2d 27 (1963). Ever mindful of this principle, the court is of the opinion that under the unique circumstances of the instant action the policy of promoting low and moderate income housing can be reconciled with the policy of preventing unreasonable and arbitrary evictions within the perimeter of the Anti-Eviction Act.

A reading of the Anti-Eviction Act, its legislative history and the cases interpreting it indicate that this act was never intended and should not be interpreted to prevent the temporary relocation of tenants so that the rehabilitation of a low and moderate income housing project might be completed. The Anti-Eviction Act states that no tenant shall be evicted from his apartment except upon the establishment of one of the 18 separate grounds set forth in the statute. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1. The Legislature's statement of purpose attached to this statute indicates that the purpose for this enactment was to prevent "arbitrary" and "unfair" ousters of residential tenants at a time when the Legislature determined there to be a critical shortage of rental housing. ³ Obviously, the purpose of the Anti-Eviction Act was not to eliminate evictions but to limit them to reasonable grounds. See Bradley v. Rapp, 132 N.J.Super. 429, 334 A.2d 61 (App.Div.1975).

Implicit in the enactment of the Anti-Eviction Act was a determination that a housing emergency existed in the State, Gardens v. Passaic, 130 N.J.Super. 369, 327 A.2d 250 (Law Div.1974), aff'd 141 N.J.Super. 436, 358 A.2d 805 (App.Div.1976), especially in the low and moderate-income housing areas. Southern Burlington Cty. N.A.A.C.P. v. Mt. Laurel Tp., 67 N.J. 151, 158-159, 336 A.2d 713 (1975). The court in Sabato v. Sabato, 135 N.J.Super. 158, 342 A.2d 886 (Law Div.1975), emphasized the shortage of housing as the motivating force behind the enactment of the Anti-Eviction Act when it said:

Thus the statute ostensibly was to serve the purpose of protecting tenants by limiting the causes for which they may be evicted and be forced to find new quarters in a market critically short of rental housing. (at 164, 342 A.2d at 889.)

Since the Anti-Eviction Act is in derogation of a landlord's common law rights of ownership, it must be strictly construed. Dacunzo v. Edgye, 19 N.J. 443, 451, 117 A.2d 508 (1955); State v. Mercer Cty. Common Pleas Ct., 1 N.J. 14, 61 A.2d 503 (1948); 25 Fairmount Ave., Inc. v. Stockton, 130 N.J.Super. 276, 326 A.2d 106 (Cty.D.Ct.1974). Consequently, in construing the meaning of this act and particularly the words "eviction" and "removal" which appear in its prohibitive sec...