AMPER, POLITZINER & MATTIA v. JEAN PIRONE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1703-09T3

AMPER, POLITZINER & MATTIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEAN PIRONE,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

UMBERTO PIRONE,

Defendant,

and

PELLETTIERI, RABSTEIN and

ALTMAN,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________________________

September 20, 2010

Submitted September 14, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Messano and Waugh.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Mercer County, Docket No. DC-001806-09.

Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, appellant pro se (John A. Hartmann, III, of counsel and on the brief).

Skey & Bhattacharya LLC, attorneys for respondent Jean Pirone (W.S. Gerald Skey, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman (PRA), a law firm, appeals the order of the Special Civil Part requiring it to pay $2,355.65 in counsel fees to defendant Jean Pirone in connection with a collection action filed against them, and PRA's client Umberto Pirone, by plaintiff Amper, Politziner & Mattia (APM), an accounting firm. APM had acted as an expert in business evaluation during the Pirones' divorce action. The fees were awarded pursuant to an indemnification agreement dated August 6, 2008, in which PRA and Umberto Pirone agreed to hold Jean Pirone harmless in the event APM made a claim against them. The indemnification included counsel fees and costs of suit.

Having reviewed the issues raised on appeal, we find them to be totally without merit and not warranting discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Consequently, we affirm for the reasons stated by Judge F. Patrick McManimon in his comprehensive oral decision of December 22, 2009.

Affirmed.