CARLO PAULINO DULAY v. GERALD DE LOS SANTOS

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5329-07T35329-07T3

CARLO PAULINO DULAY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GERALD DE LOS SANTOS, AARON

ALFELOR, AJHAY ALFELOR and

JUNSAN MIGUEL,

 
Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________

 

Submitted May 19, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Winkelstein and Chambers.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Hudson County, Docket No. DC-5264-08.

Ronald A. Cohen, attorney for appellants.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendants Gerald De Los Santos, Aaron Alfelor, Ajhay Alfelor, and Junsan Miguel appeal from a Special Civil Part judgment entered against them and in favor of plaintiff Carlo Paulino Dulay in the amount of $10,017.

On February 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against defendants for a physical assault, seeking "hospital bills and damages" in the sum of $4,000. A trial was held on May 2, 2008, in which all of the parties, appearing pro se, testified. The trial court found that the four defendants had assaulted plaintiff. Since plaintiff did not have all of his documents needed to prove damages, the trial court bifurcated the trial, and a trial on damages was held on May 30, 2008.

Plaintiff testified that he sustained a fracture to his left hand, which was treated with a cast, and he had various bruises due to the assault. Plaintiff sought compensation for his medical bills totaling $3,933, lost wages totaling $1,000, and pain and suffering. Plaintiff presented no medical testimony.

On appeal, defendants contend that the trial court exceeded its authority when it awarded damages for pain and suffering because those damages were not pled in the complaint. Defendants also assert that the amount of plaintiff's claim should have been limited to the sum of $4,000 sought in the complaint.

We reject these arguments. We recognize that a default judgment may not be entered in an amount in excess of the amount sought in the complaint. R. 4:43-2(c). However, with this exception for default judgments, generally judgments may be entered in excess of the amount sought in the complaint and for relief not demanded in the complaint. See R. 4:42-6; R. 6:6-1 (making R. 4:42 applicable to special civil part cases). On this point, the court rules provide:

Every final judgment, except final judgments by default, shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled even though that party has not demanded such relief in the pleadings, provided the parties have been given an adequate opportunity to be heard as to the relief granted.

[R. 4:42-6.]

See also Lang v. Baker, 101 N.J. 147 (1985) (providing that a plaintiff's claim for monetary damages was not limited by the amount of damages set forth in plaintiff's statement of damages provided under Rule 4:5-2); Gibson v. 1013 N. Broad Assocs., 172 N.J. Super. 191 (App. Div. 1980) (holding that a tenant may recover double her security deposit under N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 despite the fact that she only sought $300, the amount of her security deposit, in her pro se complaint).

Affirmed.

 

No other issues were briefed and hence are deemed waived. Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4 on R. 2:6-2 (2009).

Although the appeal in Gibson was from a judgment entered by a county district court, a court abolished in 1983, "the developed body of case law respecting the county district courts remains generally applicable to the Special Civil Part." Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 1 on R. 6:1-3 (2009).

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5329-07T3

June 10, 2009