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.

Mastellone v. Bittner

December 13, 2007

ANTHONY J. MASTELLONE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
SHAWN BITTNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND JACQUILYN BITTNER AND MARIA G. NERI, DEFENDANTS.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Sussex County, DC-1738-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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:

POINT I

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.

POINT II

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.

POINT III

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.

POINT IV

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 ...


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.