On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. L-269-04.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.
Defendant Adam Grosz appeals from a portion of an order entering judgment in favor of plaintiff Deborah Briggs in the amount of $89,485.16. The judgment was based on a jury verdict, which apportioned twenty percent of the total damages to defendant and found he violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -166. Thus, the judgment entered against defendant on October 3, 2006, included treble damages in the amount of $67,114.20 and counsel fees in the amount of $22,370.96. The balance of the judgment, in the amount of $285,170.68, was entered against Thomas Luisi, who defaulted.
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:
DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT IN ISSUING A WARRANTY, BREACH OF WARRANTY IS NOT A PER SE VIOLATION OF THE ACT, AND DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN NO OPPORTUNITY TO PERFORM.
IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT NOT PERMITTING TESTIMONY ON THE SALES PRICE OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING A SUBSTANTIAL GAIN, WHEN PLAINTIFF STATED SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AS AN INVESTMENT.
THE VERDICT FORM CONFUSED THE JURY.
THE VERDICT VIOLATES THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT AND IS UNJUST AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
After considering these contentions in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude there was ample evidence to support the jury verdict, there was no prejudicial error warranting a new trial, and defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant ...