KARIM ARZADI v. VERIZON, INC. et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3652-05T13652-05T1

KARIM ARZADI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VERIZON, INC. and

EISDORFER, EISDORFER &

EISDORFER, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 18, 2006 - Decided November 1, 2006

Before Judges Parker and C.S. Fisher.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,

Docket No. MID-L-4957-04.

Karim Arzadi, Esq., appellant pro se.

Ventantonio & Wildenhain, attorneys for

respondent Verizon, Inc. (Ernest D. Wildenhain,

of counsel and on the joint brief).

Eisdorfer, Eisdorfer & Eisdorfer, attorneys

for respondent Eisdorfer, Eisdorfer & Eisdorfer

(Irene S. Angelides, of counsel and on the

joint brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Karim Arzadi is a lawyer who claims that defendant Verizon, Inc. promised that he would be next in line to advertise on the back cover of Verizon's New Brunswick Yellow Pages. Defendant Eisdorfer, Eisdorfer & Eisdorfer, L.L.C., (Eisdorfer) is a law firm that currently occupies this advertising space.

Plaintiff initiated the suit by order to show cause in June 2004, seeking to restrain Verizon from publishing the New Brunswick Yellow Pages until Arzadi's advertisement appeared on the back cover. Eisdorfer moved to intervene as a party in interest.

The matter was tried over two days before Judge Edward Ryan, who rendered a written decision on February 7, 2006, in which he made extensive findings of fact and concluded that plaintiff had not proven the elements of the alleged oral contract with Verizon. The judge stated:

Plaintiff alleges that he had an oral contract to receive the opportunity to advertise on the Verizon New Brunswick Edition back cover once the current advertiser ceased advertising and that the alleged promise was given to him by Ms. Kleiman, a promise of which Ms. Kleiman categorically denied ever making to plaintiff. Even if such a promise was made by Kleiman, it would be insufficient to constitute an enforceable contract. The alleged promise did not contain all of the elements by which a contract for the subject back cover could be found . . . . [T]here is no consideration for this alleged promise . . . . Plaintiff's continued advertising in various directories in order to promote his own self-interest is insufficient to constitute consideration for an enforceable promise that he would be next to be offered the back cover.

Furthermore, it is undisputed that directory agreements with Verizon do not ripen into contracts until publication of the advertisements. Plaintiff has not shown that he was ever induced to act or forebear to act nor has he shown that based upon this alleged promise to contract at a future date, he incurred a detriment. Plaintiff has also failed to show that Verizon as the promisor received any benefit from this promise.

In this appeal, plaintiff argues that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence. We have carefully considered the record in light of plaintiff's arguments and the applicable law. We are satisfied that the decision of the trial judge is more than adequately supported by the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). Moreover, we may not engage in an independent assessment of the evidence or the credibility determinations made by the trial court. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999).

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Ryan in his comprehensive, well-reasoned decision dated February 7, 2006.

Affirmed.

 

The caption on plaintiff's brief incorrectly identifies defendant as Verison.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3652-05T1

November 1, 2006