August 8, 2011
CORBET CABLE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
PAT RODIG, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/A RACING CARBURETOR SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No. L-1572-07.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued June 16, 2011
Before Judges Fisher and Grall.
Plaintiff Corbet Cable appeals orders denying his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial and for counsel fees. Because he has failed to provide us with the transcripts necessary to evaluate his appellate contentions, we affirm.
We are able to determine the following from the record provided to us. Cable sued defendant Pat Rodig, trading as Racing Carburetor Services, for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to --20. The case was tried to a jury over five days in early April 2010. It appears that the trial court found as a matter of law that Rodig had committed certain per se violations of the CFA, and that it submitted the remaining claims - including whether Cable had suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Rodig's CFA violations - to the jury. The jury found that Cable had not suffered an ascertainable loss; that Rodig did not engage in misrepresentation; and that Rodig did not breach his contract with Cable.
Cable moved post-trial for counsel fees based on Rodig's per se violations of the CFA and judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The trial court denied all of the relief requested, and Cable appeals. Although the trial lasted five days, Cable's attorney has provided us with transcripts only of counsels' summations and the oral argument on his post-judgment motions.
Our rules require that the transcript ordered by the appellant and served on this court include "the entire proceedings in the court or agency from which the appeal is taken." R. 2:5-3(b). Cable's attorney - despite executing a certification to the contrary - has not complied. Without a full stenographic record of the trial, we cannot place in context the documentary exhibits we have been given, see R. 2:6-1(c) (requiring an appellant's appendix's table of contents state where in the stenographic record a documentary exhibit was introduced into evidence); verify the factual allegations made by the parties' in their briefs, see R. 2:6-2(a)(4) (requiring a brief contain a statement of facts "supported by references . .. to the transcript"); or assess the merits of Cable's claims of error. Accordingly, we have no alternative other than to affirm on the ground that Cable has failed to establish error warranting relief. Cipala v. Lincoln Tech. Inst., 179 N.J. 45, 55 (2004); Society Hill Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Society Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177-78 (App. Div. 2002).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.