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.

Adamsville Maintenance, Inc v. Watchung Crest

January 22, 2013

ADAMSVILLE MAINTENANCE, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
WATCHUNG CREST, LLC, DEFENDANT/THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND A. GRIMES, ESQ. AND RAYMOND A. GRIMES, P.C., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-170-08.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 13, 2012

Before Judges Messano, Espinosa and Kennedy.

Defendant/third-party plaintiff Watchung Crest, LLC (Watchung Crest or defendant) appeals*fn1 from a judgment entered against it and the dismissal of its third-party complaint against Raymond A. Grimes, Esq. and Raymond A. Grimes, P.C. (collectively, Grimes). This case arises from a construction dispute between plaintiff, Adamsville Maintenance, Inc. (Adamsville or plaintiff) and defendant regarding work that Adamsville performed for defendant in two phases, from 1999-2000 (Phase I) and in 2004 (Phase II). Following a non-jury trial, the court determined that Adamsville was entitled to payment of the outstanding balance for its services and that Watchung Crest was entitled to certain credits, resulting in a judgment in plaintiff's favor for $1714.30.

Defendant advances several arguments on appeal:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT FINDING THAT THE FAILURE BY ADAMSVILLE TO PRODUCE THE COMPLETE PHASE I AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED A "SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE" RESULTING IN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT THE COMPLETE CONTRACT CONTAINED PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRED, AMONG

OTHER THINGS, WRITTEN CHANGE ORDERS[.]

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY FOUND THAT RICHARD SCAGLIOTTA WAS AN EXPERT IN THE "SUBDIVISION AND SITE IMPROVEMENT BUSINESS."

POINT III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO PHASE

II.

A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK PERFORMED DURING PHASE II BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MEETING OF THE MINDS WITH REGARD TO TERMS ESSENTIAL TO SUCH A CONTRACT[.]

B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT FINDING THAT ADAMSVILLE'S CLAIMS COULD ONLY BE BASED ON THE ...


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.