KEITH EDWARDS v. MARTIN CADILLAC

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4381-05T24381-05T2

KEITH EDWARDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARTIN CADILLAC,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________________________________

 

Submitted December 5, 2006 - Decided March 19, 2007

Before Judges Payne and Lihotz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Special Civil Part, Bergen

County, SC-868-06.

Keith Edwards, appellant, filed a pro se

brief.

Giblin and Giblin, attorneys for respondent

(Paul J. Giblin, Jr., on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this special civil matter, plaintiff Keith Edwards appeals from a judgment in the amount of $175 in his favor on his claim against defendant Martin Cadillac for allegedly improper repair of his Cadillac.

The evidence adduced at trial establishes that on March 23, 2005, plaintiff brought his 1996 Cadillac ElDorado to Martin Cadillac in response to a "fuel rail" recall. At the time, he complained that his brakes did not hold when it was snowing, and that the emission and check engine service lights were on. The recall service was performed, and the car was test driven, but no brake defect was detected. Because plaintiff did not have an appointment for the car and the service facility was busy, he was asked to return for completion of the remaining auto service. Plaintiff claims that he was charged $109.92 for the diagnostic work performed that day. He was not charged for the recall service.

Plaintiff returned to Martin Cadillac on March 24 or 29, 2005, and, at that time, was charged $851.43 for repairs. Plaintiff then attempted to have his car inspected at the Lodi Motor Vehicle inspection station, but left when the emission light again went on. Plaintiff testified that he then called General Motors' customer service, and was instructed to return the car to Martin Cadillac.

However, "to prove a point," plaintiff went either the following day, or on March 31, 2005, to the Wayne Motor Vehicle inspection station, passed the brake inspection, but failed the emissions test because the car's emission light was on. Plaintiff testified that he then returned to Martin Cadillac on four or five occasions, but either the person who serviced emissions was not at work as the result of a double ear infection or other necessary service personnel were absent. On a final visit, plaintiff was informed by the service manager that he needed a new engine mount. Plaintiff disagreed, and he refused to have the service performed.

On May 17, 2005, plaintiff took his car to a Crown Cadillac dealership in Watchung where, after performing diagnostic services, plaintiff was informed that the car needed gasket work, but that it had been temporarily repaired by cleaning the MAP sensor. The cost was $200. Although the car then passed inspection, the emission light came on again after a few months. Plaintiff finally had the gasket replaced at Crown Cadillac, almost a year later, on March 10, 2006.

Plaintiff sought as damages $951,35: the full amount of the repair bills of Martin Cadillac. He claimed on the basis of hearsay statements by an unnamed mechanic at Crown Cadillac that the work at Martin Cadillac was done by an apprentice who performed unnecessary repairs.

The record also reflects testimony for the defense by Richard Horton, the service manager of Martin Cadillac, who was called as a fact witness and as an expert regarding mechanical issues. Horton testified that diagnostic tests were done on plaintiff's car on March 23. Upon plaintiff's return to Martin Cadillac on March 29, 2005, the results of those tests were consulted, and it was determined that plaintiff's car needed an EGR valve, which was replaced, and other service was performed as stated on the service invoice. The service light then went out and remained out while the engine was left running for approximately fifteen minutes and while the car was then driven around the block. Although Horton denied that plaintiff had returned to Martin Cadillac after his car failed inspection, he testified that, on June 17, 2005, a field monitor from the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles came to the facility in response to a complaint by plaintiff and reviewed the facility's records, but took no action.

Horton testified that none of the diagnostic codes disclosed in testing at Martin Cadillac pertained to the MAP sensor, but that debris on the sensor could cause the service light to come on. Horton testified that in a nine-year-old car, the problem with the sensor could have arisen after Martin Cadillac's service was performed.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial judge found that Martin Cadillac had in fact performed the work reflected on its invoices, which was necessary. However, since the emissions light returned immediately after the facility's repairs, he awarded damages of $125 - the approximate amount of the cost incurred at Crown for cleaning the MAP sensor - concluding that Martin would have performed that service for free if the car had been returned to it immediately.

On appeal, Edwards presents facts that he did not introduce at trial, stating that he "hope[d] by way of appeal to get [his] point across this time." However, as Martin Cadillac notes, we cannot consider evidence that was not presented to the trial court, Middle Dept. Inspection Agency v. Home Ins. Co., 154 N.J. Super. 49, 56 (App. Div. 1977), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 234 (1978), because it did not form a basis for the decision from which Edwards is appealing, R. 2:5-4, and because Martin Cadillac did not have the opportunity at trial to test the new facts by cross-examination or to respond to them through testimony of its own witnesses.

Our review of the judge's order of judgment in this matter is limited to a consideration of the record at trial and to a determination whether that order is supported by adequate competent evidence. Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). Having thoroughly considered the trial transcript, we are satisfied that the judge's determination was properly based on the record and that the result of the trial did not offend the interests of justice. In this regard, we note that Edwards did not present any competent proof that the work performed by Martin Cadillac was unnecessary or performed by an inexperienced mechanic. Edwards' assertions to the contrary, premised upon alleged comments made by an unknown employee of Crown Cadillac, properly were not considered by the trial judge because their hearsay nature rendered the assertions inadmissible. N.J.R.E. 802. Further, there was no competent proof presented that any of the repairs recommended by Martin Cadillac, but not performed, were unnecessary; that the repairs that it did perform were not directed to solving the problem reported by Edwards; that the mechanical problem causing the emissions light to activate at the Motor Vehicle inspection station did not arise then, and not earlier; or that the damages awarded did not fairly represent the cost of cleaning the MAP filter.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-4381-05T2

March 19, 2007