DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS v. GREGORY B. KELESH

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6208-04T16208-04T1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs.

GREGORY B. KELESH,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: June 13, 2006 - Decided June 30, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Cuff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-779-05.

Eric J. Bal, attorney for appellant.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie Cavanagh, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following a summary proceeding pursuant to Rule 4:67-2(b), judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff Department of Community Affairs and against defendant Gregory B. Kelesh in the amount of $144,486.02 for relocation expenses incurred by plaintiff following closure of an unlicensed rooming house owned and operated by defendant. On appeal, defendant argues that that the trial judge denied him due process by not allowing him a meaningful opportunity to retain an attorney, by mischaracterizing the nature of the proceeding, by advising defendant that retaining an attorney was futile, by pre-judging the case, and by allowing plaintiff's attorney to submit proofs through leading questions. Defendant also argues that the trial judge erred by not applying the relevant provisions of the relocation assistance statute. Finally, defendant contends that N.J.S.A. 20:4-4.1 does not allow compound interest.

We have carefully reviewed the record in its entirety and conclude that all, but one, of the arguments presented by defendant are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). Plaintiff concedes that it is not entitled to compound interest. Therefore, the judgment is modified from $144,486.02 to $129,554.76.

 
Affirmed as modified.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-6208-04T1

June 30, 2006

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.