DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS v. GREGORY B. KELESH
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-6208-04T16208-04T1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
vs.
GREGORY B. KELESH,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________
Submitted: June 13, 2006 - Decided June 30, 2006
Before Judges Conley and Cuff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-779-05.
Eric J. Bal, attorney for appellant.
Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie Cavanagh, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following a summary proceeding pursuant to Rule 4:67-2(b), judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff Department of Community Affairs and against defendant Gregory B. Kelesh in the amount of $144,486.02 for relocation expenses incurred by plaintiff following closure of an unlicensed rooming house owned and operated by defendant. On appeal, defendant argues that that the trial judge denied him due process by not allowing him a meaningful opportunity to retain an attorney, by mischaracterizing the nature of the proceeding, by advising defendant that retaining an attorney was futile, by pre-judging the case, and by allowing plaintiff's attorney to submit proofs through leading questions. Defendant also argues that the trial judge erred by not applying the relevant provisions of the relocation assistance statute. Finally, defendant contends that N.J.S.A. 20:4-4.1 does not allow compound interest.
We have carefully reviewed the record in its entirety and conclude that all, but one, of the arguments presented by defendant are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). Plaintiff concedes that it is not entitled to compound interest. Therefore, the judgment is modified from $144,486.02 to $129,554.76.
Affirmed as modified.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-6208-04T1
June 30, 2006
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.