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.

Antolino v. Quinn

May 18, 2009

MICHAEL ANTOLINO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/ CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOHN QUINN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/ CROSS-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-3361-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 23, 2009

Before Judges Lisa and Alvarez.

This is an appeal by plaintiff Michael Antolino from the dismissal of his complaint against defendant John Quinn.*fn1

Summary judgment was granted by the Law Division judge on December 18, Antolino notified Quinn and Speight that he wished to dissolve the LLC pursuant to the terms of the original agreement. Neither Quinn nor Speight responded. The restaurant has not been open since that time.

Antolino's complaint against Quinn, filed May 5, 2006, seeks damages sounding in contract. The complaint includes counts for breach of the implied covenant of good faith, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract, demands an accounting, alleges fraud and misrepresentation, and demands rescission of the LLC agreement. Antolino contends that his damages include not only his initial investment of $150,000, but also punitive damages in the amount of $250,000, other unspecified damages, attorney fees and costs of suit. Quinn filed an answer and counterclaim, after which the parties engaged in approximately a year of discovery.

We affirm Judge Toskos' dismissal for the reasons stated in his thorough and comprehensive decision. We add only the following very abbreviated comments.

Antolino's brief raises the following points:

I. THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO PRESENT HIS CLAIM FOR RESCISSION TO A JURY:

A. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF BREACH OF THE IMPLIED CONVENIENT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING.

B. THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM.

C. THE PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS.

D. THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO PRESENT HIS CLAIM FOR ...


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.