ARSENEAULT, FASSETT & MARIANO, LLP v. ROBERT W. GREITZER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2791-04T32791-04T3

ARSENEAULT, FASSETT & MARIANO, LLP,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT W. GREITZER,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

GREITZER, INC., NORTH CAROLINA,

GKI, INC., SUMMERDOWN REALTY

DEVELOPMENT CO., MACGRE CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, INC., GREITZER 1990 IRREVOCABLE

TRUST, SAMANTHA AND ALEXANDRA CORP.,

and THE GREITZER FAMILY TRUST,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted January 11, 2006 - Decided January 27, 2006

Before Judges Fall and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Morris County,

L-2375-02.

Robert W. Greitzer, appellant pro se.

Arseneault, Fassett & Mariano, LLP,

respondent pro se (Steven G. Sanders,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Robert W. Greitzer appeals from a denial of his motion to vacate a final judgment entered against him and in favor of plaintiff Arseneault, Fassett & Mariano, LLP (AF&M) in this action to collect legal fees. Because defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment or establish grounds for relief from final judgment pursuant to R. 4:50-1, we affirm.

On July 11, 2002, AF&M filed a complaint to collect legal fees incurred by defendant. AF&M alleged defendant's connection with the following entities, which it also named as defendants: Greitzer, Inc., North Carolina; Summerdown Realty Development Co.; Macgre Construction Company; GKI, Inc.; Samantha Alexandra Corp.; Greitzer 1990 Irrevocable Trust and Greitzer Family Trust. Defendant did not file an answer and AF&M moved for entry of default judgment. In opposition to that motion, defendant filed a certification in which he acknowledged debt to AF&M, complimented the services rendered by the firm and questioned the firm's right to proceed against the remaining defendants. AF&M's motion was denied.

Defendant subsequently filed a "response to complaint" dated April 8, 2003. He did not file a counterclaim or assert any affirmative defense.

On April 15, 2004, AF&M and defendant participated in arbitration. The arbitrator found defendant personally liable for 100% of the damages, and set damages at $141,841. Defendant signed the "report and award of arbitration."

On May 18, 2004, AF&M moved to confirm the award and enter judgment in the amount of $141,841.55 with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $14,102.53. Defendant did not oppose the motion, and on June 18, 2004, judgment was entered against defendant personally.

On July 12, 2004, defendant moved to "reverse the order confirming final judgment." AF&M filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which was granted on September 19, 2004. The judgment provided a thirty-day stay of execution to permit defendant to file a motion to vacate.

On October 7, 2004, defendant moved to vacate the judgment, which AF&M opposed. On November 4, 2004, the court entered an amended order of final judgment, incorporating its denial of defendant's motion to vacate the final judgment, grant of attorneys fees in the amount of $202.50 to AF&M on the motion, and increasing the judgment amount to $158,897.93, so as to include pre-judgment interest until October 9, 2004.

On appeal defendant presents one argument:

I. PLAINTIFF'S BILL WAS EXCESSIVE DUE TO

CHOOSING TO MOVE A COMPLICATED,

TECHNICAL CASE FROM ATTORNEY TO ATTORNEY

WITHIN THEIR FIRM.

Our review of the record convinces us that the argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Defendant failed to support this argument in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, acknowledged liability for the fees in a certification submitted below and fails to present or argue any ground for relief from final judgment pursuant to R. 4:50-1.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2791-04T3

January 27, 2006