DILMUROD AKRAMOV VS. AMY DELUCAÂ (SC-708-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0550-15T4

Background

Akramov leased a condominium from DeLuca from April 2011 and lived there ~4 years; disputes arose after move-out over damage and a $1,350 security deposit.
Akramov testified some preexisting stains and normal wear were present (17-year-old unit), he painted with DeLuca's permission, steam-cleaned carpets before leaving, and replaced a doorknob per agreement.
DeLuca produced photos, receipts, and estimates showing alleged damage: Formica countertop burn marks, chipped bathtub and sink, stained/marked carpet (bleach/paint/marker), a broken stove burner, grime on appliances, and poor paint work over outlets.
DeLuca admitted she did not place the security deposit in a separate interest-bearing account or give notice of deposit location; she had commingled it in her personal account.
The Special Civil Part credited DeLuca's testimony and evidence, concluded DeLuca had commingled the security deposit (entitling Akramov to damages with interest calculated from tenancy start), but also found Akramov caused substantial damage and awarded DeLuca damages exceeding the deposit; judgment for DeLuca for $1,562 (after offset).
Akramov appealed, arguing the trial court erred by awarding replacement costs without applying depreciation to items like the Formica countertop and porcelain sink.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by awarding replacement costs without depreciating certain items	Trial court should have applied depreciation (useful life) to items like Formica countertop and sink; relied on outside letter showing depreciable lives	Trial court credited photographic and repair-receipt evidence showing active, non-ordinary damage requiring repair/replacement; items didn’t fail from normal wear	Trial court credited DeLuca’s evidence; did not err in its damage measure—items showed active damage not attributable to normal wear, so no depreciation applied
Whether trial court properly credited defendant’s testimony and supporting evidence over plaintiff’s contrary materials	Akramov argued his evidence (and letter) undermined DeLuca’s damage claims	DeLuca produced contemporaneous photos, invoices, and estimates supporting damages	Appellate review defers to trial court credibility findings; sufficient competent evidence supported findings
Whether commingling security deposit required statutory penalty in favor of tenant	Akramov argued commingling warranted damages/interest	DeLuca conceded commingling but disputed ultimate offset and damage calculation	Trial court found commingling and awarded damages (including interest) which were offset against DeLuca’s counterclaim; affirmed
Whether trial court’s remarks about resale affected damages award	Akramov claimed court improperly considered resale potential	DeLuca pointed to condition evidence harming marketability	Comments were gratuitous and did not control the damages analysis; no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv’rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (principle of appellate deference to trial factfinding)
Locurto v. Governing Body, 157 N.J. 463 (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. Z.P.R., 351 N.J. Super. 427 (appellate review limits; no de novo reweighing of evidence)
Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154 (standard for disturbing trial findings)
Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 (damages may be proved by reasonable inference; exactness not required)