Preview:

a0457-05.opn.html

Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version

This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*. (NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0457-05T30457-05T3 PRAEDIUM II BROADSTONE, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHARLES PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________

Submitted September 19, 2006 - Decided October 18, 2006 Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Gilroy. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-4074-04. Eddie R. Hadden, and Earl A. Rawlins of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys for appellant (Messrs. Hadden and Rawlins, on the brief). Reed Smith, attorneys for respondent (Anthony J. Laura, of counsel; Joseph O'Neil, Jr., of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant, Charles Payne, appeals from an order of the Law Division entered July 25, 2005, that: 1) granted plaintiff's, Praedium II Broadstone, LLC, motion to vacate an administrative dismissal of the action, to confirm a nonbinding arbitration award entered under Rule 4:21A-5, and to enter judgment against defendant in the amount of $254,897.26, inclusive of pre-judgment interest; and 2) denied defendant's cross-motion to extend the time for rejecting the arbitration award and filing a demand for a trial de novo. Defendant also appeals from a second order entered on September 9, 2005, that denied his motion for reconsideration of the order of July 25, 2005. We affirm.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0457-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:39:34 PM]

a0457-05.opn.html

On March 23, 2004, plaintiff filed its complaint seeking to recover damages against defendant as guarantor of a commercial lease agreement, and pursuant to Rule 4:21A-1(a)(3), the matter was submitted to non-binding arbitration. On March 1, 2005, the arbitrator found defendant liable, and awarded plaintiff $250,000 in damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest. On April 26, 2005, the trial court entered an order, pursuant to Rule 4:21A-6(b), administratively dismissing the action, because neither party had demanded a trial de novo within thirty days of the arbitration award, and the parties had not moved for confirmation or submitted a consent order for dismissal or entry of judgment within fifty days of the award. On April 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the order of administrative dismissal and reinstate its complaint, confirm the arbitration award, and enter judgment against defendant. Defendant opposed plaintiff's motion and cross-moved to affirm the administrative dismissal of April 26, 2005, or in the alternative, for leave to file a demand for trial de novo beyond the thirty-day period proscribed by Rule 4:21A-6(b)(1). Following oral argument on the motions, Judge Mecca denied defendant's motion, determining that defendant had not established extraordinary circumstances to warrant an extension of the deadline requiring a demand for trial de novo to be filed within thirty days of entry of the award, Rule 4:21A-6(b)(1), and granted plaintiff's motion determining that the "'extraordinary circumstances' standard is inapplicable to the fifty-day time limitation for confirmation of an arbitration [award]" under Rule 4:21A-6(b)(2). On appeal, defendant argues: POINT I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S APPLICATION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO AND GRANTING THE JULY 25, 2005 ORDER VACATING THE DISMISSAL, CONFIRMING THE ARBITRATION AWARD AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. POINT II. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT'S UNDERLYING CLAIM FOR A MONETARY JUDGMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT. A. THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DETERMINED THAT THE PLAINTIFF- RESPONDENT HAD NO SURVIVING MONETARY CLAIMS UNDER THE 1999 LEASE. B. THE COURT FAILED TO INTERPRET PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT'S CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AS A PERSONAL GUARANTOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that defendant's argument under Point I is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0457-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:39:34 PM]

a0457-05.opn.html

reasons expressed by Judge Mecca in his statement of reasons attached to the order of June 29, 2005. See also, Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J. 611, 616-17 (1997) (holding that the time period for filing a rejection of an arbitrator's award and demand for a trial de novo may be extended only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances); Allen v. Heritage Court Assoc. 325 N.J. Super. 112, 118 (app. Div. 1999) (holding that motions to vacate dismissals for failure to file a timely motion to confirm an arbitration award should be viewed with great liberality). Because of our affirmance, we need not address the argument in Point II pertaining to the merits of the claim.

Affirmed. The order of July 25, 2005, amended a prior order of the Law Division entered on June 29, 2005, that mistakenly affirmed the administrative dismissal. (continued) (continued) 5 A-0457-05T3 October 18, 2006 0x01 graphic

This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a0457-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 1:39:34 PM]



Download a0457-05.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law