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.

Brooks Sloate Terrace Cooperative Association, Inc v. La Dora Griffin

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


October 1, 2012

BROOKS SLOATE TERRACE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
LA DORA GRIFFIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-2458-09.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 25, 2012

Before Judges Fisher and St. John.

Plaintiff Brooks-Sloate Terrace Cooperative Association, Inc., is the owner of a 242-unit cooperative apartment complex in Paterson. Defendant La Dora Griffin owns a unit in the complex. In 2009, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant, alleging her violation of various bylaws and house rules and seeking, among other things, a writ of possession; defendant counterclaimed, alleging plaintiff's breach. The trial judge granted both parties' summary judgment motions. Defendant thereafter unsuccessfully moved for counsel fees and costs, pursuant to Rules 1:4-8 and 4:23-2, and defendant appealed. We affirmed with one exception. Brooks Sloate Terrace Coop. Assoc., Inc. v. Griffin, No. A-2033-11 (App. Div. Feb. 14, 2012) (slip op. at 8). In reversing and remanding in part, we determined that, in disposing of defendant's Rule 1:4-8 motion, the judge failed to make findings pursuant to Rule 1:7- 4(a). Brooks Sloate, supra, slip op. at 7-8.

On February 22, 2012, in complying with our mandate, the trial judge filed a ten-page written opinion, which thoroughly analyzed defendant's arguments, the relevant facts, and the applicable legal principles, and entered an order denying defendant's motion for fees. Defendant appeals the judge's February 22, 2012 order, arguing:

I. THE TRIAL COURT'S RELIANCE UPON ITS ERRONEOUS DECISION IN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PLAIN ERROR.

II. THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF THE MOTION BELOW WAS PLAIN ERROR.[*fn1 ]

III. THE COURT BELOW ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.

IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER RULE 1:4-8.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

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.