A recent appellate decision has confirmed that the operators of a fast-food restaurant are responsible for unpaid rent and related charges after years of litigation with the owners of a commercial property. The ruling matters to both landlords and tenants by clarifying how courts handle disputes over lease obligations, counterclaims about property conditions, and the timing of legal claims.
The Estate of Mohamed J. Kazan and Abdulrahman Kazan filed the complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County against The Grill House, Inc., its operator Mawafag Abedallah (also known as Mike Murtana), and Ahmad Khawatmi. The Appellate Division issued its decision on April 1, 2026, under Docket No. A-0434-24.
According to court documents, the conflict began with a five-year lease agreement signed in December 2009 for a Main Street property in Paterson. The property was used by Grill House as a fast-food restaurant operated by Murtana. Under the lease terms, Khawatmi initially agreed to pay $72,000 in base rent for the first year with annual increases and cover taxes and utilities as additional rent. Shortly after signing, Khawatmi assigned his interest to Grill House.
Litigation started in 2016 when the plaintiffs alleged non-payment of rent totaling $62,324.10. After several hearings and orders—including one in February 2020 directing release of funds to plaintiffs—the matter was deemed closed at that time. However, Grill House did not comply with payment obligations from this order.
In March 2020, another action was filed seeking recovery for additional unpaid amounts totaling $24,549.69. Subsequent court orders required Grill House to pay specific sums directly to plaintiffs or deposit them with the court for outstanding rent, utilities, and taxes through various periods between 2019 and 2021.
From October 2021 through early 2022, Grill House failed to prosecute its counterclaims or comply with payment orders. In February 2022, $124,860.14 held by the Clerk was released to plaintiffs by court order; attempts by defendants to reconsider this were denied.
Grill House responded with counterclaims alleging breach of implied covenants and express lease terms by plaintiffs—citing issues such as flooding during COVID-19 restrictions that allegedly rendered the property unusable as a restaurant—and accused plaintiffs of ineffective repairs.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims for non-payment of rent and wrongful possession against Murtana and Khawatmi individually. Continued non-compliance led to further motions: on November 7, 2022, judgment of possession was granted to plaintiffs along with an award (subject to adjustment) exceeding $197,000.
Defendants moved unsuccessfully for stays or postponements; their motion for reconsideration resulted in modification of owed amounts down to $116,388.19 if paid by December 30, 2022—a deadline they missed. Attempts to vacate judgment or dismiss claims also failed; a warrant of removal was executed in February 2023 after temporary restraints were denied.
A jury trial took place over five days in September 2024 but focused only on Grill House’s counterclaim after plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their own claims before trial began. Testimony showed business decline starting as early as 2013; financial records indicated mounting losses from 2016 onward. Evidence regarding events before March 28, 2016 was excluded due to statute-of-limitations rules tied to when defendants filed their counterclaim.
During trial proceedings it emerged that after eviction proceedings began—despite submitting a check for $116,388.19—Murtana placed a stop payment on it after missing deadlines set by previous court orders.
On October 10, 2024 an order reflected a no cause verdict favoring plaintiffs on all remaining issues following voluntary withdrawal or dismissal of fraud-based counterclaims.
On appeal defendants argued errors including improper admission of prior court orders into evidence (allegedly prejudicing their right to fair trial), exclusion based on statutes-of-limitations rules barring older claims about repair failures or economic loss prior to March 28th six years earlier than filing date), denial of motions seeking disqualification of opposing counsel Hisham I. Masri based on claimed conflicts-of-interest under professional conduct rules—and challenged payments directed by prior orders as erroneous.
The appellate panel found no plain error regarding admitted evidence since most contested orders entered without objection; affirmed application of statute-of-limitations barring older claims; determined there was no basis shown for disqualifying Masri given lack of timely motion or demonstrated conflict; upheld calculation adjustments made by lower courts regarding sums owed based on hearings held in late-2022/early-2023; and found other arguments raised insufficiently meritorious for written discussion.
Attorneys involved included Michael Confusione (for appellants) from Hegge & Confusione LLC and Hisham I. Masri (for respondents) from Reddin Masri LLC. The case is identified under Docket No. A-0434-24.
Source: A043424_Estate_of_Kazan_v_The_Grill_House_Inc_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
