Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Briggs v. Luisi

August 31, 2007

DEBORAH BRIGGS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
THOMAS LUISI, MOHAMMED KENDIL, E&D STUCCO, SEVEN ACRES TRUST CO., RICHARD BELLON, E.I.F.S. OF N.J., INC., BUILDING DIAGNOSTICS, INC., AND H&J FREILE HOME INSPECTION, INC., DEFENDANTS, AND ADAM GROSZ,*FN1 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. L-269-04.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted July 17, 2007

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:

POINT I

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.

POINT II

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.

POINT III

THE VERDICT FORM CONFUSED THE JURY.

POINT IV

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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.