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.

Liang v. Loo

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


August 4, 2010

YUE YE LIANG, YUE HUANG LIANG, AND FULLY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLENE LOO, ELIZABETH TING, VICTOR T. YAP, VTY REALTY CORP., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-5823-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 22, 2010

Before Judges Rodríguez and Reisner.

Plaintiffs appeal from three orders of the Law Division: a December 7, 2007 order denying their summary judgment motion, a September 3, 2008 order of judgment, and a November 7, 2008 order denying their motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal as untimely.

This is the pertinent procedural history. This action arises from a dispute over the terms of a commercial real estate lease. Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging breach of contract, among other claims. Defendants answered and filed a counterclaim for unpaid rent. Plaintiff's moved for partial summary judgment. The judge entered a December 7, 2007 order denying the motion.

After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor. The judge entered a September 3, 2008 order of judgment in accordance with the verdict. This order was not served upon plaintiffs until September 29, 2008.

On October 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 7, 2007 order and the September 3, 2008 order of judgment. The judge entered a November 7, 2008 order denying the motion. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal on December 22, 2008.

Appeals from final judgments must be made "within forty-five days of their entry." R. 2:4-1(a) (emphasis added). While the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration will toll the time period for appealing, "the remaining time shall begin to run from the date of the entry of an order disposing of such a motion." R. 2:4-3 (emphasis added).

Here, more than forty-five days passed from the entry of the September 3, 2008 order of judgment to the filing of the motion for reconsideration on October 20, 2008. Even a more lenient calculation that begins the forty-five day period on the date of service of the order of judgment, rather than the date of entry, as Rule 2:4-1(a) requires, still renders the appeal untimely. Twenty-one days passed from the September 29, 2008 date of service to the filing of the motion for reconsideration. This left plaintiffs with a "remaining" twenty-four days to appeal after the November 7, 2008 order "disposing of the [the motion for reconsideration]." R. 2:4-3. However, plaintiffs waited forty-five days to file their December 22, 2008 notice of appeal.

Thus, we dismiss the appeal as untimely pursuant to Rule 2:4-1(a).

20100804

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.