RONALD L. KAMM, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Respondent,
WILLIAM PFISTER, Defendant-Respondent/ Cross-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued October 7, 2013
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-3976-11.
Kathleen R. Wall argued the cause for appellant Ronald L. Kamm.
John M. Hockin, Jr., argued the cause for cross-respondent Ronald L. Kamm (Ronan, Tuzzio & Giannone, attorneys; Mr. Hockin, on the brief).
Russell Macnow argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant.
Before Judges Parrillo, Harris, and Guadagno.
Plaintiff Ronald L. Kamm appeals from a Law Division judgment entered on October 24, 2012, dismissing his complaint after a hearing. Defendant William Pfister cross-appeals from an order entered by the same court on March 30, 2012, dismissing his counter-claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm both orders.
On July 20, 2009, Dr. Kamm, a psychiatrist, was appointed by Family Part Judge Teresa A. Kondrup-Coyle, to "conduct a full family evaluation" to determine defendant's fitness to have visitation and parent his son. The court order also stated that defendant was responsible for all of the costs associated with Dr. Kamm's evaluation and his parenting time with his son was suspended until the therapist recommended that it continue.
On July 29, 2009, defendant paid Dr. Kamm a $2, 000 retainer followed by five payments in 2010, totaling $9, 500. By January 21, 2011, Dr. Kamm had not completed his report and defendant, by email, questioned when it would be finished. On February 18, 2011, Dr. Kamm replied that he wanted an additional $5, 000 by March 3, 2011, and an additional $1, 000 when he completed his report. Defendant paid Dr. Kamm an additional $1, 000 on February 17, 2011.
On February 23, 2011, Judge Kondrup-Coyle called Dr. Kamm and requested that he provide her with his completed report within a week. Dr. Kamm then emailed defendant and requested an additional $9, 000 by February 28, 2011, stating that the payment would be "inclusive of the final report" and that he would rearrange his schedule to complete the report by that date.
Defendant paid Dr. Kamm as requested, but the report was not completed as promised. Instead, Dr. Kamm sent an email to defendant on February 28, 2011, seeking an additional $5, 500. He indicated that he now expected to complete the report by the following Wednesday ...