ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI et al. v. KAZUYO UEDA SAKHRANI

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0282-05T50282-05T5

ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI and

KAZUYO UEDA SAKHRANI,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DAVID WADYKA, DIFRANCESCO,

BATEMAN, COLEY, YOSPIN, KUNZMAN,

DAVIS & LEHRER, P.C., MICHAEL

KOSAR and MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN

& COURTNEY, P.C.,

Defendants-Respondents.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted May 16, 2006 - Decided June 8, 2006

Before Judges Skillman and Payne.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Somerset County, Docket No. SC-8-05.

Atoo Heera Sakhrani and Kazuyo Ueda Sakhrani, appellants, pro se.

DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, attorneys for respondents David Wadyka and DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer (David P. Wadyka, of counsel; Mr. Wadyka and Joseph V. Sordillo, on the brief).

Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, attorneys for respondents Michael A. Kosar and Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney (Sean X. Kelly and Michael A. Kosar, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from orders entered on March 17 and 21, 2005, which dismissed their complaint and awarded an aggregate of $4235.35 to defendant law firms for counsel fees and costs incurred in defending this action, based on the trial court's finding that plaintiffs had filed and prosecuted a frivolous complaint, and an August 26, 2005 order denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiffs present the following arguments:

I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AND IGNORED ALL EVIDENCE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED THAT DEFENDANTS LIED TO THE COURT THAT THEY NEVER RECEIVED TRANSCRIPTS OF DEPOSITIONS HELD IN THE FEDERAL COURT THAT THEY WERE TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS FREE OF CHARGE, THEREBY DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS DUE PROCESS.

II. TRIAL JUDGE WAS BIASED AND DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST PLAINTIFFS, PERSONALLY ATTACKED PLAINTIFFS WITH AD HOMINEM STATEMENTS, HUMILIATION OF PLAINTIFFS, DENIGRATED THE PLAINTIFFS, THREATENED PLAINTIFFS AND WOULD NOT ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.

These arguments are clearly without merit and do not warrant any discussion in addition to the trial court's March 7, 2005 oral opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Although not set forth under a separate point heading, plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred in awarding defendants an aggregate of $4235.35 for their counsel fees and costs incurred in defending this action. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that plaintiffs' complaint was frivolous and that defendants are entitled to an award of counsel fees and costs under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and R. 1:4-8. However, we conclude that the awards were excessive and should be reduced. It is not clear from the record whether defendant David P. Wadyka appeared at trial solely as a witness or also as an attorney for defendants. In any event, we perceive no justification for the appearance of two attorneys to represent the DiFrancesco firm at trial. Therefore, we conclude that the award of $875 for Mr. Wadyka's appearance at trial was unjustified and reduce the award to the DiFrancesco firm to $984. We find no justification for the inclusion in the Marks firm's application for counsel fees of substantial travel time and conclude that no more than six hours of attorney time could reasonably be justified for the defense of this action. Accordingly, the award to the Marks firm for counsel fees and costs is reduced to $1116.35.

As thus modified, the orders on appeal are affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0282-05T5

June 8, 2006