Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Calo Agostino v. Chrein

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


April 14, 2008

CALO AGOSTINO, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHARLES CHREIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND 220 EAST 57TH STREET ASSOCIATES, DEFENDANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Law Division, Docket No. L-13939-04.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 4, 2008

Before Judges Fuentes and Grall.

Defendant Charles Chrein appeals from the order of the Law Division denying his application to vacate a default judgment entered against him and defendant 220 East 57th Street Associates*fn1 on February 7, 2005. We affirm.

Defendant initially filed a motion to vacate the default judgment on March 4, 2005. In a memorandum of opinion dated April 15, 2005, Judge Smith denied defendant's application for relief under R. 4:50-1. On defendant's direct appeal from Judge Smith's decision, we affirmed. Calo Agostino, P.C. v. Chrein, No. A-4460-04 (App. Div. June 9, 2006).

On March 28, 2007, defendant filed a second motion to vacate the default, raising the identical arguments previously rejected by both Judge Smith and this court. Despite the legally preclusive effect of this court's prior decision, affirming the denial of the earlier identical motion to vacate, by order dated April 20, 2007, the Law Division held that defendant could vacate the default by "post[ing] a bond, in the full amount of the judgment within 30 days." Defendant did not take advantage of this opportunity; no bond was posted. On May 22, 2007, the trial court entered an order denying defendant's motion to vacate the default.

Defendant now appeals from this order, arguing for the first time that plaintiff did not comply with R. 4:43-1.

Defendant's argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Our earlier decision affirming Judge Smith's order is dispositive and bars any further applications for relief.

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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