SAMUEL J. KOUTOUZAKIS v. ORENSON CONSTRUCTION

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6605-04T56605-04T5

SAMUEL J. KOUTOUZAKIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

LUZ J. KLUGE,

Petitioner,

v.

ORENSON CONSTRUCTION,

Respondent,

and

BUREAU OF HOMEOWNER PROTECTION,

NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM,

Respondents-Respondents.

__________________________________

 

Submitted December 4, 2006 - Decided December 21, 2006

Before Judges Lintner and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Final Decision of the Department of Community Affairs, Docket No. CAF 09750-02.

Samuel J. Koutouzakis, appellant, pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Homeowner Protection, New Home Warranty Program (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie Cavanagh, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This case arises under The New Home Warranty and Builders' Registration Act, N.J.S.A. 46:3b-1 to -20. Petitioner Samuel Koutouzakis appeals from a final decision of the Commissioner of Community Affairs, dismissing his claim against Orenson Construction, a builder, for alleged improper attachment of vinyl siding on his and Luz Kluge's home. The basis for the dismissal was Koutouzakis' and Luge's alleged refusal to allow the builder to make repairs.

On this appeal, petitioner Koutouzakis claims he and Kluge did not refuse to allow the builder to make repairs; he claims they were given inadequate notice that the builder was planning to appear to make repairs, and they suggested several alternate dates but the builder did not respond. Koutouzakis' appendix contains documents that support his claim. He seeks a new administrative hearing. The State agrees that petitioner is entitled to a hearing to determine the merits of his contention that he and Kluge did not refuse the builder access to make the repairs. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the agency for purposes of transferring the matter expeditiously to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Remanded.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6605-04T5

December 21, 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.