WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC. v. HARTZ MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES, INC., and INTERNATIONAL WAY, L.L.C.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6765-04T16765-04T1

WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HARTZ MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,

and INTERNATIONAL WAY, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

ALAMO RENT-A-CAR (as successor-in-

interest to ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC.),

Defendant.

_________________________________________

 

Argued May 24, 2006 - Decided June 12, 2006

Before Judges Wefing, Wecker and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,

L-7208-03.

Craig A. Ambrose argued the cause for

appellants (Horowitz, Rubino & Patton,

attorneys; Mr. Ambrose, on the brief).

Andrew T. Fede argued the cause for

respondent (Herten, Burstein, Sheridan,

Cevasco, Bottinelli, Litt & Harz,

attorneys; Mr. Fede, of counsel and on

the brief).

PER CURIAM

After a bench trial, Judge Rachel Davidson placed on the record a clear, well-reasoned decision setting forth her findings of fact and conclusions of law and awarded plaintiff damages of $42,945 for the conversion of two trailers by defendants Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc., and International Way, L.L.C. We affirm.

The evidence adduced at trial supports the judge's factual findings and legal conclusions. In sum, plaintiff, Williams Scotsman, Inc., leased two trailers to Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. Alamo placed the trailers on property that it leased from the City of Newark. Newark later sold the property to Hartz. When Hartz took possession of the property, the trailers were still there. Alamo continued to occupy the property as it had, as a tenant of Hartz. Alamo continued its use of the trailers as before, and continued to lease the trailers from plaintiff on a month-to-month basis.

After Alamo properly notified plaintiff that it would no longer lease the trailers, plaintiff attempted to reclaim its property. Hartz refused access to plaintiff, claiming it owned the trailers. All of the evidence supports the judge's conclusion that Hartz knew it did not own the trailers when it wrongfully refused to give up possession to the rightful owner.

Contrary to Hartz's contention, plaintiff's employee was qualified to offer an opinion of the market value of the trailers at the time of the conversion. Plaintiff owned a large fleet of trailers, including many of the same models as the two that Hartz had retained. Plaintiff's used trailers were regularly and routinely valued for resale, and its witness had personal knowledge of the valuation formulae that were used in the ordinary course of plaintiff's business.

We find insufficient merit in defendant's arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Davidson on May 5, 2005.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6765-04T1

June 12, 2006