JOEL GIVON v. CRIMKAV CORP., t/a THE BLAU & BERG COMPANY et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0279-05T2279-05T2

JOEL GIVON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CRIMKAV CORP., t/a THE BLAU

& BERG COMPANY and KENNETH

F. CRIMMINS,

Defendants-Respondents.

__________________________________________

 

Submitted May 3, 2006 - Decided May 22, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Weissbard.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Union County, UNN-L-0289-05.

Thomas W. Sweet attorney for respondents.

Joel Givon, appellant, pro se.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals an August 19, 2005, order granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing his complaint, and an earlier, May 27, 2005, order denying his motion to add additional parties. The underlying complaint was filed on January 25, 2005, and asserts a claim to a real estate commission on a commercial transaction that occurred in 1989. Since the complaint was filed long after the expiration of the applicable six-year statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

On appeal, plaintiff asserts:

1. JUDGE KAREN M. CASSIDY'S DECISION WAS IN A DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE ORDER TO MEDIATION OF JUDGE ANZALDI.

2. SINCE THE EXTENSIVE RECORD SUPPORTS FRAUDULENT DEALINGS, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY.

3. SINCE THE APPELLANT, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, HAS BEEN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SINCE THE YEAR 1990.

4. JUDGE CASSIDY'S DECISION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS IS A CONFLICT WITH THE FILED COURT'S RECORDS.

In plaintiff's reply brief, he contends:

1. BOTH LEGAL ARGUMENTS HAVE NO MERIT.

2. THEY DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EACH AND EVERY EXHIBIT OF THE VERY DETAILED APPENDIX OF THE PRO-SE APPELLANT, INCLUDING AN INDEPENDENT AND OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF THE CERTIFICATION OF LICENSE STATUS OF KENNETH F. CRIMMINS/CRIMKAV CORP/THE BLAU AND BERG COMPANY, BY THE NEW JERSEY REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, DATED FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 2005, WHICH IS AN EXHIBIT 38a, ON THE PRO-SE APPELLANT'S APPENDIX.

3. THE VERY EXTENSIVE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE SESSION OF JUNE 9, 2005, AS INDICATED ON THE EXHIBITS OF THIS REPLY BRIEF HAD BEEN FACILITATED BY ISRAEL'S NATIONAL PHONE COMPANY, BEZEK BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL ON 09/06/05, AT 9:30 A.M. EASTERN STANDARD TIME, 16:30 ISRAEL STANDARD TIME, FOR AN UNLIMITED TIME DURATION, AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT 65a OF THIS REPLY BRIEF.

We have carefully considered these contentions and are convinced they are of insufficient merit to require further opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

 
Affirmed.

In addition to the May 27 and August 19, 2005, orders, the record includes a September 28, 2005, order denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. Although plaintiff's "legal arguments" do not refer to this order, it, too, clearly was properly entered as there was, then, no complaint to amend, summary judgment dismissing the complaint having previously properly been entered.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0279-05T2

May 22, 2006