On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, L-10051-02.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 4, 2007
Before Judges Coburn, Fuentes, and Grall.
Defendants, Lookout Builders, Inc., and Charles Zoccoli ("Lookout") appeal from an order dismissing their cross-claims for contribution under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law ("JTCL"), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-1 to -5, and for common law and contractual indemnification against defendants Dor-Win Manufacturing Co. ("Dor-Win"), Degussa Wall Systems, Inc. ("Dugussa"), and E. Robinson Group, Inc. ("Robinson") (also referred to collectively hereinafter as "respondents"). We affirm.*fn1
This case arose from the construction of the Prospect Ashley Condominium, which began in Hackensack in the late 1980's and was completed in the early 1990's. Lookout owned and developed the project as general contractor. Dor-Win manufactured and supplied the windows pursuant to a contract with Lookout; Degussa manufactured a product called Exterior Insulation Finish System ("EIFS"). Robinson purchased the EIFS from Degussa and supplied it to the site, where it was installed by other entities.
From 1993, by which time the project was complete, through some time in 2000, Lookout retained control of the Condominium Board. Although Lookout had received complaints from unit owners about water leaking into the building through the windows, it took no legal action on those complaints. In 2000, Lookout relinquished control of the Board to the owners of the condominiums.
In 2002, plaintiff, Prospect Ashley Condominium Association, Inc., filed suit against Lookout and ultimately, by amended complaints, included as defendants, among others, DorWin, Degussa, and Robinson. Although Lookout filed cross-claims for contribution and indemnification, it never served them on Dor-Win, Degussa, or Robinson.
In January 2006, Lookout wrote to Robinson's counsel seeking indemnification pursuant to a written indemnification agreement. About four months later, Robinson refused the request.
The briefs advise us that after the conclusion of extensive discovery, respondents filed motions for summary judgment against plaintiff on the ground that its claims were barred by the statute of limitations. By order dated May 30, 2006, summary judgment was entered for Dor-Win dismissing the "Complaint and all claims against them (sic)." Another May 30, 2006, order granted summary judgment on the complaint to Robinson but preserved Lookout's cross-claims. The parties appear to agree that Degussa also obtained summary judgment on the complaint at the same time as the other respondents, but an order to that effect is not included in the record.
Lookout filed a motion on or about June 1, 2006. The relief sought was an order "clarifying" the prior orders so as to indicate that its cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against the respondents would be preserved. Robinson replied with a cross-motion seeking dismissal of Lookout's cross-claims against it. Without filing a motion, Dor-Win asked for the same relief. At argument on the motions, Degussa, apparently without the support of any written request, but without objection on that ground from Lookout, also asked for dismissal of the cross-claims against it. The result was an order entered on August 18, 2006, which dismissed Lookout's cross-claims against the three respondents. Although the order does not say so, the parties agree that the dismissal was with prejudice.
In September 2006, plaintiff and Lookout settled their differences with Lookout agreeing to pay plaintiff one million dollars, and on September 12, 2006, the court entered an order of dismissal. On December 8, 2006, a judgment was entered, on the settlement, apparently at Lookout's request. The judgment stated, in pertinent part, that "judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendant Lookout Builders, Inc., inclusive of all interest and costs in the amount of One Million Dollars."
On January 11, 2007, Lookout filed its Notice of Appeal seeking review of the August 18, 2007, order dismissing its cross-claims against the respondents.
Two of the respondents, Robinson and Degussa, argue that Lookout's appeal should be dismissed because it was filed too late. Robinson argues that the time for appeal began to run when the order was entered "on September 9, 2006, dismissing this matter with prejudice." The order is actually dated September 12, 2006, and it does not state that it is with prejudice. Degussa has the date of the order correct, but fails to include any supporting authority for its argument. The record contains no evidence that the September 12, 2006, order was requested by any party, served on Lookout, or even filed with Lookout's knowledge. Apparently, it was entered sua sponte by the judge, and it reads as follows: "It having been represented by counsel that this case has been settled: It is on this 12 ...