JESSE ROSENBLUM v. CGI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4915-04T14915-04T1

JESSE ROSENBLUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CGI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant,

and

Borough of Closter and

Mayor Fred Pitofsky,

Defendants-Respondents.

_____________________________

 

Submitted December 6, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Collester and S.L. Reisner.

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

L-5791-04.

Jesse Rosenblum, appellant pro se.

Edward Rogan & Associates, attorneys for respondents (JoAnn Riccardi, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Jesse Rosenblum, appeals from a trial court order dismissing with prejudice his complaint against the Borough of Closter and Mayor Fred Pitofsky, due to plaintiff's failure to provide discovery. We affirm.

Plaintiff filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs, challenging a resolution adopted by the Closter Borough Council. In the resolution, the Council ratified the Mayor's decision to sign a contract with CGI Communications, Inc. for the installation of banners on lampposts in the Borough, although the resolution only authorized a one-year agreement rather than a three-year agreement. Plaintiff contended that hanging the banners violated a Borough ordinance concerning signage.

The Borough served interrogatories, which plaintiff did not answer. Accordingly, upon the Borough's motion, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice by order dated November 10, 2004. On March 4, 2005, when plaintiff still had not provided discovery, the court granted the Borough's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice pursuant to R. 4:23-5(2).

On this appeal, plaintiff raises the following arguments:

POINT I: THE GOVERNING BODY CANNOT WAIVE ORDINANCES IMPROPERLY.

POINT II: THE (CLOSTER IMPROVEMENT) COMMISSION AND GOVERNING BODY COULD NOT LEGALLY EXCULPATE THE MAYOR FROM THE MAKING OF A VIOLATIVE CONTRACT.

POINT III: THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN DECLARING THE BANNER CONTRACT TO BE VALID.

POINT IV: THIS INSTANT MATTER IS WORTHY OF ADJUDICATION.

 
We conclude that plaintiff's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Plaintiff failed to answer interrogatories, and his complaint was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.

Plaintiff is not appealing an earlier order dismissing his complaint against defendant CGI Communications, Inc.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4915-04T1

 

January 5, 2006