just cause exists," it does not address the main inquiry in this case: whether the
landlord's certification under SMC 22.206.160(C)(4) is dispositive on the question
of just cause. Durruthy is therefore not helpful.
Tenants also rely on Hale v. Farrakhan, 390 N.J. Super. 335, 915 A.2d 581
(2007). Suppl. Br. ofPet'rs at 6. In Hale, the court held that in a wrongful eviction
action, the landlord has the burden of proving his failure to personally occupy the
unit was not arbitrary. 390 N.J. Super. at 337. Because Hale concerned wrongful
eviction actions brought by tenants, rather than unlawful detainer actions brought by
landlords, the case is of limited usefulness. While Hale provides some insight as to
why New Jersey state courts also place the burden of proof on the landlord in an
unlawful detainer action, id. at 340-41, the issue in the present case does not concern
who bears the burden of proof. Rather, this case concerns the ability of the tenant to
present evidence rebutting the landlord's certification of intent.
Lastly, Tenants rely on N'Jie v. Mei Cheung, No. 09-919, 2011 WL 809990
(D.N.J. Mar. 1, 2011) (unpublished), aff'd, 504 F. App'x 108 (3d Cir. 2012). Suppl.
Br. of Pet'rs at 6. In N'Jie, the court granted the landlords' motion for summary
judgment regarding just cause for nonrenewal of a lease agreement. 2011 WL
-13-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Faciszewski, eta!. v. Brown, eta!., 92978-5
809990, at *2-3. The court found that the landlords showed an "authentic, subjective
intention to personally occupy" the unit. Id. at *3. Because the tenants merely
disputed the landlords' reason for wanting to personally occupy the unit, rather than