SHAUKAT ALI v. PLATINUM APPRAISAL SERVICES, INC.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6517-04T56517-04T5

SHAUKAT ALI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PLATINUM APPRAISAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Respondent.

___________________________________________________

 

Submitted April 5, 2006 - Decided May 1, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Winkelstein.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County,

L-1011-05.

Shaukat Ali, appellant pro se.

Thomas A. Harley, attorney for respondents.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Shaukat Ali appeals the dismissal, just prior to jury selection, of his amended complaint against defendant Platinum Appraiser, Inc. The dismissal was memorialized in an order entered that same day, June 1, 2005.

The basis for Judge Velazquez's dismissal was that insofar as the complaint pled a violation by defendant of the Consumer Fraud Act, such a cause of action was not sustainable under the rationale of Macedo v. Dello Russo, 178 N.J. 340, 345-46 (2004), since defendant was acting in the capacity of a licensed professional real estate appraiser, N.J.S.A. 45:14F-1 to -26. To the extent that the complaint alleged a cause of action other than the CFA, plaintiff failed to provide an expert's report setting out the applicable standard of care and the manner in which defendant deviated from that standard. See N.J.A.C. 13:40A-6.1 (incorporating applicable standards from the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice). Insofar as plaintiff had provided an expert's report, the judge found it clearly inadequate.

On appeal plaintiff has presented a rambling, disorganized and generally incomprehensible pro se brief in excess of sixty pages. He has set out his points of argument, which we quote verbatim, as follows:

Point 1.

This is not merely a professional negligence claim dressed in other legal clothing; it is a classic contract claim against an agent," id. at 317, for breach of a written contract of employment.

Point 11.

A. party seeking specific performance must show that he or she was "ready, desirous, prompt and eager" to perform as required by the contract on the date specified.

Point 111.

Each creditor shall promptly furnish an applicant, upon written request by the applicant made within a reasonable period of time of the application, a copy of the appraisal report used in connection with the applicant's application for a loan that is or would have been secured by a lien on residential real property. The creditor may require the applicant to reimburse the creditor for the cost of the appraisal

Point 1V:

"[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of moneys or property," and can be construed as authorizing threefold recovery for any and all damages sustained by any such person.

We have reviewed plaintiff's arguments, to the extent that we have been able to comprehend them, in light of the record and applicable law. The arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Velazquez in his oral ruling of June 1, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

Plaintiff's amended complaint named as defendants "Platinum Appraiser, et al." However, its introductory paragraph referred to "Defendant Srivatsa Kota [as] an appraiser whose business is located at. . . ." Defendant's answer was filed only on behalf of Platinum Appraiser, Inc. Whether Mr. Kota was intended to be a defendant does not change the basis for the Law Division ruling nor our disposition.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-6517-04T5

May 1, 2006