WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS VS. SHANA GOODMAN (LT-22712-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1582-20

Background:

Landlord Washington Street Apartments sued tenant Shana Goodman (started Sept. 2019) alleging her dog barked incessantly and disturbed other tenants; default judgment and warrant issued after Goodman missed a trial date.
The parties entered an October 2019 stipulation requiring Goodman to prevent excessive barking after 7:00 p.m.; plaintiff later moved for enforcement based on alleged breaches and a warrant issued Feb. 28, 2020 but could not be executed because of the COVID-19 eviction moratorium.
Governor’s Executive Order 106 and the AOC Directive #20-20 permitted eviction enforcement only when a court found it "in the interests of justice," citing disruptive conduct (e.g., destroying peaceable enjoyment) as an example and requiring personal service of an order to show cause.
Plaintiff filed for a warrant under the "interests of justice" exception in Nov. 2020; an order to show cause was issued Dec. 30, 2020 and—per the court record—personally served on Goodman; she did not appear at the Jan. 13, 2021 hearing.
The judge heard a neighbor’s testimony that the dog barked constantly, found the neighbor credible, concluded Goodman violated the stipulation and that eviction was warranted "in the interests of justice," and signed a warrant; Goodman later appeared, claimed lack of notice and that the dog was a service animal, but the judge again found her testimony not credible (dog barked during the hearing).
The Appellate Division granted a temporary stay, accelerated the appeal, and ultimately affirmed: it found the trial judge’s fact findings were supported by the record, concluded no due process violation, noted the judge should have stated legal conclusions more fully but that remand for additional findings was unnecessary, and remanded to re-issue the warrant for execution.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the eviction could proceed under EO 106/Directive "interests of justice" exception	Landlord: the persistent barking and repeated violations of the stipulation create emergent circumstances justifying relief from the moratorium	Goodman: a six‑pound dog’s barking does not satisfy the special‑interests exception; judge failed to explain why exception applied	Court: affirmed — judge’s factual findings (credible neighbor testimony, prior stipulation breach, prolonged disturbance) supported using the exception; Directive listed such disruptions as examples
Whether Goodman received adequate notice under the Directive and thus was denied due process	Landlord: plaintiff personally served the order to show cause as required	Goodman: she lacked notice of the Dec. 30 order and thus was deprived of an opportunity to be heard	Court: affirmed — judge had plaintiff’s certification of personal service; Goodman’s testimony did not rebut service and judge found her not credible
Whether Goodman was entitled to a de novo hearing or cross‑examination after the January 13 proceeding	Goodman: due process required vacating the judgment and providing a new hearing with cross‑examination	Landlord: the bench hearing and the judge’s credibility determinations sufficed	Court: affirmed — no requirement to vacate; the record supported the judge’s credibility findings and outcome
Whether the trial judge’s oral decision satisfied R. 1:7‑4(a) (statement of reasons)	Landlord: existing record and judge’s familiarity with case made further findings unnecessary	Goodman: judge failed to state legal conclusions explaining why the moratorium exception applied	Court: judge should have more fully articulated legal conclusions, but given the record and explicit findings the omission was not reversible; remand for fuller findings unnecessary

Key Cases Cited

Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, SLA, 205 N.J. 150 (2011) (standard of appellate review for bench trial findings)
In re Trust Created By Agreement Dated December 20, 1961, ex rel. Johnson, 194 N.J. 276 (2008) (appellate review principles)
Manalapan Realty LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (no deference to legal conclusions)
Mountain Hill, LLC v. Twp. of Middletown, 399 N.J. Super. 486 (App. Div. 2008) (appellate scope: do not reweigh credibility)
Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563 (1980) (trial judges must state conclusions of law under R. 1:7‑4)
In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357 (2020) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (due process principles)
Slutsky v. Slutsky, 451 N.J. Super. 332 (App. Div. 2017) (remand for fuller findings when necessary)