STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BRENDA WILLIAMS (6234, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3409-18T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BRENDA WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Argued November 12, 2020 – Decided January 20, 2021
Before Judges Alvarez and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Union County, Municipal Appeal No. 6234.
Joshua M. Nahum argued the cause for appellant (Law
Offices of Alan L. Zegas, attorneys; Alan L. Zegas and
Joshua M. Nahum, on the briefs).
Albert Cernadas, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for respondent (Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union
County Prosecutor, attorney; Albert Cernadas, Jr., of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Brenda Williams appeals from the Law Division's February 26,
2019 order affirming her municipal court conviction for careless driving,
N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. On appeal, defendant principally argues that the State failed
to meet its burden of proving every element of N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. We affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Lara K. DiFabrizio's cogent
written opinion. We add only the following comments.
We discern the following facts from the municipal court trial transcript.
On June 24, 2018, at approximately 5:48 p.m., Gladys Martinez was traveling
from her home in Linden to her daughter's residence in Roselle Park. While
traveling on Locust Street, Martinez began to make a right-hand turn onto West
Webster Avenue, but stopped when she observed two pedestrians crossing West
Webster Avenue in the crosswalk. When Martinez stopped, defendant rear-
ended her vehicle.
Officer James Kompany of the Roselle Park Police Department was
dispatched to the scene and took statements from both drivers. Martinez
informed Kompany that she stopped her vehicle after observing pedes trians
walking in the crosswalk and was struck from behind. Defendant informed
Kompany that Martinez "came to an abrupt stop," and defendant "just didn't
realize that [Martinez] was stopping like that so . . . she hit her." After
A-3409-18T1
2
interviewing the parties and assessing the scene of the accident, Kompany issued
defendant a summons for careless driving.
At the municipal trial, however, defendant contradicted her statement at
the scene of the accident, testifying that Martinez had fully executed her right-
hand turn and was out of view when she abruptly backed up and slammed into
defendant's vehicle. The municipal judge found that both Martinez and
Kompany were credible. In contrast, the judge determined defendant's
testimony was "contradictory" because she "made no mention to the officer at
the time about the other vehicle backing up into the intersection." The municipal
judge found defendant guilty of careless driving due to her failure to p ay
attention to the vehicle in front of her and her failure in not allowing a proper
distance between her vehicle and Martinez's vehicle. The municipal judge
imposed a $106 fine as well as $33 in court costs.
Defendant appealed her conviction to the Law Division. Judge DiFabrizio
affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. The judge also found the
defendant's "version of events to be inconsistent with the evidence, self-serving,
and to lack merit." The judge determined that there was nothing in the record
to undercut the credibility findings of the municipal court. The judge concluded,
based on the facts adduced during the trial, that: (1) defendant operated a motor
A-3409-18T1
3
vehicle in Roselle Park on June 24, 2018; (2) defendant drove without due
caution when she failed to realize Martinez's car had come to a stop, and failed
to stop prior to colliding into the rear of her vehicle; and (3) defendant's conduct
endangered Martinez, the pedestrians crossing the street, and Martinez's vehicle.
Our "review of the factual and credibility findings of the municipal court
and the Law Division 'is exceedingly narrow.'" State v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154,
167 (2015) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470 (1999)). The "standard
of review of a de novo verdict after a municipal court trial is to 'determine
whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient
credible evidence present in the record,' considering the proofs as a whole."
State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1, 8 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting State v. Johnson,
42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). "[A]ppellate courts ordinarily should not undertake
to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two
lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." State v.
Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 148 (2017) (quoting Locurto, 157 N.J. at 474).
However, a "trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences
that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference."
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
A-3409-18T1
4
The relevant motor vehicle statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, states: "A person
who drives a vehicle carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection, in
a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property, shall
be guilty of careless driving." In the case before us, Martinez's testimony and
defendant's admission to Kompany about how the accident occurred amply
support the conclusion that defendant was following the car in front of her too
closely and failed to make proper observations. These facts also support the
decisions of both judges that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
careless driving. See Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 10 (1969) ("a following
car in the same lane of traffic is obligated to maintain a reasonably safe distance
behind the car ahead, having due regard to the speed of the preceding vehicle
. . . Failure to do so resulting in a collision, is negligence") (internal citation
omitted).
To the extent not specifically addressed, defendant's remaining arguments
are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-3409-18T1
5