SCOTT DUBOYS v. JAMES HEDDEN

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2317-06T12317-06T1

SCOTT DUBOYS and

JACQUELINE DUBOYS,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

JAMES HEDDEN and SCOTCH

PLAINS BUILDERS a/k/a SCOTCH

PLAINS BUILDERS, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________

 

Submitted March 31, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges A. A. Rodr guez and C. S. Fisher.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Union County, Docket No. DC-11535-05.

Jeney & Jeney, attorneys for appellants (Robert J. Jeney, Jr., of counsel and on the brief).

John Dempsey, attorney for respondents.

PER CURIAM

James Hedden and Scotch Plains Builders, L.L.C. (collectively "Defendants), appeal from a final judgment of the Special Civil Part in the amount of $12,999.85, plus $40 in costs and $275 in attorney's fees in favor of Scott Duboys and Jacqueline Duboys (Plaintiffs). The judgment was entered based on Judge Joseph P. Perfilio's September 12, 2006 written opinion. Following six days of trial of over a six-month period, the judge found Defendants liable for breach of contract and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20. On December 28, 2006, Defendants filed this appeal contending that: "there were no facts to substantiate a violation of the [CFA]" and "the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient proof of their damages."

We decline to address the merits of the appeal because it was not filed timely. A party has forty-five days from the date the judgment is entered on the civil docket to file an appeal. R. 2:4-1(a); Hamm v. City of Clifton, 229 N.J. Super. 423, 428 (App. Div. 1990). The time to file may be tolled for a number of reasons enumerated in Rule 2:4-3, one such reason is:

In civil actions on an appeal to the Appellate Division by the timely filing and service of a motion to the trial court . . . for rehearing or reconsideration seeking to alter or amend the judgment or order pursuant to R. 4:49-2. The remaining time shall again begin to run from the date of the entry of an order disposing of such a motion.

[R. 2:4-3(e) (emphasis added).]

Here, Judge Perfilio entered judgment against Defendants on September 12, 2006. Twenty days later, on October 3, 2006, Defendants moved for reconsideration of the judgment. The judge denied this motion and entered an order to that effect on November 14, 2006. On December 28, 2006, Defendants filed their notice of appeal. Therefore, Defendants' appeal was filed sixty-four days after judgment, allowing for tolling during the pendency of the reconsideration motion. That is nineteen days beyond what is permitted by Rule 2:4-1 and -3. Accordingly, this appeal is out of time.

The appeal is dismissed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2317-06T1

August 25, 2008

 


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.