STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDREW ALFORD(13-08-2522, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1446-15T4

Background

Sabbagh's house burned in 2004; he received approvals in 2007 to rebuild and while clearing the lot his oak fell into Muller's yard, damaging trees; he paid Muller $15,000 to resolve that dispute.
In Superstorm Sandy (2012) a large tree on Muller's property uprooted and fell into Sabbagh's yard, damaging recently planted saplings; Sabbagh sued Mull er for $15,000 claiming she had notice the tree was weakened from the 2007 incident.
Muller counterclaimed that Sabbagh's 2011 regrading and installation of a seepage pit increased runoff and silted and ponded her yard; she sought injunctive relief and $15,000 (later expert-estimated damages at $40,000, including $6,000 for regrading/lawn repair of ~6,000 sq ft).
Bench trial: both parties testified; Muller’s landscape-architect expert submitted a report and testified; Sabbagh presented no expert. Judge found both witnesses credible and that the critical facts were in equipoise.
Trial judge dismissed Sabbagh’s claim (no proof Muller breached duty or proximately caused the tree’s uprooting) and denied injunctive relief on the counterclaim but awarded Muller $6,000 for topsoil/seed/fertilizer to repair ~6,000 sq ft.
Sabbagh appealed pro se, arguing the trial decision was against the weight of the evidence and that the 6,000 sq ft figure overstated the area requiring repair.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Muller's tree was negligently maintained and caused Sandy damage to Sabbagh	Sabbagh: tree was previously damaged in 2007 and Muller had notice of its weakened condition	Muller: uprooted tree was healthy and not one of the 2007-damaged trees; no negligent act caused uprooting	Court: Evidence on identity/notice was in equipoise; plaintiff failed to prove breach or proximate cause; claim dismissed
Whether injunctive relief or corrective work on Muller's property was necessary	Sabbagh: denies liability for runoff; disputes need/extent of remedial work	Muller: regrading and seepage issues required remediation; expert estimated extensive reseeding/feathering of ~6,000 sq ft	Court: seepage pit installed by Sabbagh largely alleviated infiltration; injunctive relief denied
Whether Muller's damages for lawn/topsoil are supported and correctly quantified	Sabbagh: area requiring repair is less than 6,000 sq ft; expert included work for seepage pits/trees that court refused	Muller: expert testified 6,000 sq ft required regrading/feathering beyond visible bare spots; disturbed areas include where seepage tanks would go	Court: Expert’s testimony supported the 6,000 sq ft figure and $1/sq ft industry estimate; $6,000 award upheld
Standard of review for bench trial factual findings	Sabbagh: contends judge's credibility determinations and findings were against weight of the evidence	Muller: supports deference to trial court’s credibility assessments and findings	Court: applied deferential standard for non-jury findings; affirmed trial judge’s factual conclusions and credibility determinations

Key Cases Cited

Burke v. Briggs, 239 N.J. Super. 269 (App. Div. 1990) (neighbor tree/notice negligence principles)
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Land, 186 N.J. 163 (2006) (plaintiff bears burden to prove claim when evidence in equipoise)
In re Trust Created By Agreement Dated Dec. 20, 1961, ex rel. Johnson, 194 N.J. 276 (2008) (standard of review for trial court findings in non-jury cases)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (deference to trial court factual findings)
Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150 (2011) (credibility and appellate review of bench trial findings)