On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Sussex County, DC-1738-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 4, 2007
Before Judge Skillman and Winkelstein.
Plaintiff, Anthony J. Mastellone, is a contractor who filed suit against Shawn Bittner, Jacquilyn Bittner and Maria G. Neri for sums allegedly due for work plaintiff had performed at 40 Park Avenue in Newton (the property). Neri is the owner of the property, Shawn Bittner is the tenant, and the record is unclear as to what interest, if any, Jacquilyn Bittner, Shawn Bittner's daughter, has in the property.
Following a bench trial, Shawn Bittner (Bittner) appeals from the court's August 21, 2006 order, entering judgment for $11,859.65, plus costs. The order specifically dismissed the complaint against Jacquilyn Bittner and Maria Neri. On appeal, Bittner raises the following four points for our consideration:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MAKING A FINAL RULING WITHOUT RESOLVING ONE OF THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE CASE. THE DECISION BY THE TRIAL COURT AWARDS A MONETARY JUDGMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, BUT DOES NOT ADDRESS WHO IS TO COMPLETE THE UNFINISHED WORK COVERED IN THE "CONTRACT" AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES. IN ADDITION IF THIS WORK IS TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF, HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IT AFFECT THE JUDGMENT AMOUNT.
THE PLAINTIFF PERJURED HIMSELF IN STATEMENTS AND THROUGH FALSE REPRESENTATION, CAUSING THE TRIAL COURT TO ERR IN MAKING ITS DECISION WITHOUT THE TRUE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN ITS DECISION THE COURT REPEATEDLY CITES CREDIBILITY, YET THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE NOT OPEN TO BIAS OR INTERPRETATION. BASING ITS DECISION ON THE CREDIBIILTY OF A PARTY FOUND TO HAVE PERJURED THEMSELVES CASTS DOUBT ON THE DECISION AS A WHOLE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONTRACT PROPOSED BY THE PLAINTIFF IS INVALID AND IS IN FACT DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE AND ITS USE ILLEGAL BY THE NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNTS REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. THE PLAINTIFF SERVED PAPERS DEMANDING THE AMOUNT OF $11,859.65, YET IN TESTIMONY STATED THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY ONLY OWED $9749.65. WHICH AMOUNT IS CORRECT, IF EITHER? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? WHY IS THERE NO CLEAR ACCOUNTING OR DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PLAINTIFF TO CLARIFY EXACTLY THE AMOUNT OWED, IF ANYTHING? THE ...