WAI NG v. EDDIE'S PLUMBING & HEATING SPECIALIST, INC.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1638-04T21638-04T2

WAI NG,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDDIE'S PLUMBING & HEATING

SPECIALIST, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

 

Submitted October 19, 2005 - Decided February 2, 2006

Before Judges Wecker and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Special

Civil Part, Middlesex County,

Docket No. SC-1495-04.

W. Eddie Irving, III, appellant pro se.

Respondent did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal taken from the judgment of the Law Division, Special Civil Part, Small Claims Section, awarding plaintiff Wai Ng $750 in damages. Defendant appellant is a corporation that has filed and prosecuted this appeal thus far without legal representation. By order dated October 25, 2005, we dismissed the appeal without prejudice, based on the restrictions outlined in R. 1:21-1(c). By order dated December 1, 2005, we vacated the October 25, 2005, order and reinstated the appeal because "we were unaware that Eddie's Plumbing had previously sought and obtained leave to file this appeal 'pro se.'"

We now address the substantive issues raised by defendant Eddie's Plumbing. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence to support its decision that plaintiff suffered quantifiable damages proximately caused by defendant's actions. On the question of damages, defendant argues that plaintiff was not competent to offer an opinion as to what was technically required to correct defendant's alleged plumbing mistake, or to testify as to the reasonableness of the charges he paid to a plumber to correct these alleged mistakes. We agree with defendant's arguments and reverse.

The facts are essentially undisputed. Plaintiff's residence is part of a condominium complex. On June 3, 2004, Dennis Simon, an employee of Eddie's Plumbing, was dispatched to plaintiff's unit, under the mistaken belief that plaintiff had ordered the installation of a natural gas line to be connected to a barbeque on plaintiff's deck. Simon showed plaintiff the permit for the work. Believing that the condominium association had contracted with defendant to do this work, plaintiff permitted Simon to install the gas line.

After the work was partially completed, but before the work was inspected by the municipal authorities, plaintiff discovered that the gas line was actually ordered by his neighbor. Defendant acknowledged the mistake and offered to remove the line. Plaintiff rejected this offer, and demanded that defendant complete the work for free. The parties were unable to reach an agreement, and plaintiff sued defendant in Small Claims Court claiming $750 in damages.

Neither side was represented by counsel at trial. In response to the court's question, plaintiff's witness testified that the only work needed to be done to complete the installation was the connection of the pipe line to the main gas line and capping the line. Plaintiff gave the following testimony as to both the measure of damages, and the need to correct defendant's allegedly deficient work:

THE COURT: You're suing for $750. There's an invoice from --

MR. NG: To give that --

THE COURT: -- Centerelli --

MR. NG: Yes. To finish the job. This job is not finished correctly. The line is not connected, because I stopped this job because it was not ordered by me, nor the association, which I believe, originally, when they knocked on my door that morning and handed me a permit.

THE COURT: So what is Centerelli going to charge you $750 to do?

MR. NG: Well, they would have to remove the whole line, because they're not going to complete someone else's job, as stated on the -- on the description. You would have to run the whole thing -- or I would have to get a contractor to come and, you know, replace the whole wood, and it would cost even more.

THE COURT: So how about answering my question? What is Centerelli going to do for $750?

MS. WONG: Centerelli --

THE COURT: Well, no, I'm going to hear from him.

MR. NG: He's going to connect the line and finish the job correctly, and get it inspected so it passes inspection with the South Amboy --

THE COURT: Centerelli is not going to remove the line. Centerelli's going to finish the job?

MR. NG: Well, they're going to remove it and put in a new one.

The court specifically relied on this testimony in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'm going to resolve in favor of the homeowner, because you installed a gas line without getting their approval to have you come onto their property and install it, and bill them for that. As a result they have suffered damage. The amount of damage is the amount of $750, which is what they're going to pay Centerelli to take out your pipe and reinstall the pipe.

 
Although we acknowledge that the rules of evidence are relaxed in Small Claims trials, Triffin v. Quality Urban Hous. Partners, 352 N.J. Super. 538, 543 (App. Div. 2002); N.J.R.E. 101(a)(2)(A), a court's factual findings must, nevertheless, be grounded on evidence that carries an indicia of trustworthiness. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). Plaintiff's unsupported testimony that, in order for him to be made whole, he must completely remove defendant's work, lacks the technical foundation necessary to make it trustworthy. Plaintiff's unsupported estimate of the cost involved to remove and reinstall the gas line suffers from this same deficiency.

Reversed.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-1638-04T2

February 2, 2006