LEWIS REISMAN v. UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6240-09T4

LEWIS REISMAN and EDO KALUSKI,

Plaintiffs,

and

THOMAS M. SCHIEBLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND

DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY,

Defendant-Respondent.

__________________________________

Argued May 4, 2011 Decided May 13, 2011

Before Judges Ashrafi, Nugent and Kestin.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No.

L-1827-08.

Mark D. Schorr argued the cause for appellant (Crow & Associates, attorneys; Mr. Schorr, on the brief).

Michael J. Gonnella, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Gonnella, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

One of three original plaintiffs, Dr. Thomas Schieble, appeals from an adverse judgment after a one-day bench trial in which Judge Edward J. Ryan concluded that defendant University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) had not breached its employment contract with the doctor. Plaintiff claims that his series of two-year term contracts were for total compensation of $485,000 per year, plus additional benefits, and that UMDNJ committed an anticipatory breach by unilaterally reducing in June 2007 the portion of his compensation package called Faculty Practice Guarantee by $120,193. Plaintiff did not sign the offer letter for the third contract, and it took effect on July 1, 2007, when plaintiff continued to work in his position as the Director of Pediatric Anesthesia at UMDNJ. Plaintiff resigned in September 2007 and took other positions, but his income was less than it would have been under his reading of the UMDNJ contract. He claims entitlement to $236,819.49 in contract damages from UMDNJ.

Having reviewed the record, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned written opinion of Judge Ryan issued on July 19, 2010. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in another written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

A