SPACEAGE CONSULTING CORP. v. MAHESH VENKATA K. MULUKUTLA

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1416-05T31416-05T3

SPACEAGE CONSULTING CORP.,

A New Jersey Corporation,

Plaintiff-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant,

v.

MAHESH VENKATA K. MULUKUTLA,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Argued October 17, 2006 - Decided December 8, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lihotz.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-3418-04.

Mahesh Venkata K. Mulukutla, appellant/ cross-respondent argued the cause pro se.

Feintuch, Porwich & Feintuch, attorneys for respondent/cross-appellant (Philip Feintuch, of counsel; Jeffrey T. Kampf, on the brief).*

PER CURIAM

In this contract dispute, defendant appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and the denial of his ____________________

* Defendant requested oral argument. Plaintiff declined to appear, submitting on its brief.

motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff also filed a cross-

appeal from the dismissal of its claim for lost profits. We affirm the trial court's determinations on the issues raised in both the appeal and cross-appeal.

Plaintiff operates a temporary employment agency providing training services for computer software professionals, who, following completion of training courses, are placed in employment with plaintiff's clients. The client pays plaintiff a fee and plaintiff pays the employee a salary. Plaintiff's income is derived from the differential in the client's payment and the employee's salary, which approximates $30.00 per hour.

In the summer 2002, defendant searched for an employer to sponsor his work permit prior to the expiration of his student visa. He had completed his Master's degree in Computer Science and was required to obtain employment within one year.

On May 1, 2003, defendant executed an application in plaintiff's training division. Plaintiff's "Train-to-Hire" program provided software development and training services to aid defendant's placement. Training was provided "free of cost in return for a promise to work for Spaceage for [the] duration of three years."

Defendant agreed to enter plaintiff's "Train-to-Hire" program, executing an employment agreement with plaintiff on May 6, 2003. As a condition of the employment agreement, the employee's commitment to remain in plaintiff's employ for a period of three years was required. The document further provided that if defendant left the employment before the conclusion of this commitment period, he would be liable to reimburse plaintiff for the "expense incurred, towards visa processing, green card processing, recruitment, training," and the like, as specified in the Exhibit "A" attached to the agreement. The exhibit, which was separately executed by defendant, reiterated that the training was "given in return for an agreement to work for Spaceage for at least three years." The actual cost of training stated in the exhibit was $700 per week. The exhibit additionally listed expenses advanced by Spaceage which were required to be reimbursed if the employee ceased employment prior to the conclusion of the three-year commitment period.

Plaintiff provided defendant twenty weeks of training. Upon completion of the training, defendant commenced employment with plaintiff's client on September 15, 2003, earning $40,000 per year. Defendant ceased his employment on July 2, 2004.

Plaintiff's complaint sought enforcement of the contractual provisions of the employment agreement, including reimbursement of the training and other costs expended, along with damages incurred as a result of its claim for lost profits. Defendant admitted at trial he executed the agreements, which he fully understood. However, he argued he did not receive training but was given textbooks to read. Defendant also maintained he was justified in leaving his employment after he received a letter from the Department of Labor suggesting an investigation of plaintiff's practices had commenced and he feared his visa status would be adversely affected.

The trial court, after finding a valid contract between the parties, rejected defendant's explanation for his departure and concluded defendant's breach was unwarranted. Damages were awarded for the twenty weeks of training at a cost of $700 per week, along with the costs of the certifications received by defendant at a cost of $599.50. All other damage claims, including that for lost profits, were denied.

On appeal, we are constrained to review only the record of the matter presented to the trial court. R. 2:5-4; Cipala v. Lincoln Tech. Institute, 179 N.J. 45, 52 (2004). We will not consider issues not previously raised before the trial court which do not address "the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest." Neider v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (citation omitted).

Our review discloses Judge Tolentino's findings on all contested issues are adequately supported by the facts set forth in the record. R. 2:11(e)(1)(A). We also determine the legal issues raised by defendants' appeal and the plaintiff's cross-appeal are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-1416-05T3

December 8, 2006