SHERMAN BRUCHANSKY v. JON NISTAD

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3332-07T33332-07T3

SHERMAN BRUCHANSKY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JON NISTAD,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

BRUCHANSKY & NISTAD, LLC

AND BFN CORPORATION,

Defendants.

 

Argued November 12, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Winkelstein and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity, Mercer County, C-2-04.

Thomas J. Hagner argued the cause for appellant (Hagner & Zohlman, attorneys; Mr. Hagner, on the brief).

Jeffrey A. Weiner argued the cause for respondent (Stark & Stark, attorneys; Mr. Weiner and Michael J. Fekete, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In May 2001, plaintiff, Sherman Bruchansky, filed a shareholder action against defendants. Three years later, Judge Shuster referred the dispute to mediation. Following mediation, on December 28, 2004, the parties voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement which, among other things, provided procedures to select an appraiser and to arbitrate all outstanding issues.

Following arbitration, the arbitrator entered an award on October 29, 2007, revised on November 27, 2007. Plaintiff filed a motion to confirm the award and Jon Nistad filed opposition. Judge Shuster issued a written decision on February 21, 2008, confirming the arbitration award, and he entered an order on that date memorializing his decision and entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $66,121.71. It is from that order that Nistad appeals. He claims that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and the trial court erred by not modifying the award and by not correcting the arbitrator's miscalculations.

Nistad's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E). Judge Shuster carefully considered the parties' agreement to arbitrate, evaluated the evidence put before the arbitrator, and thoroughly discussed the court's limited role in confirming or setting aside the decision of an arbitrator. See Tretina Printing, Inc. v. Fitzpatrick & Assocs., Inc., 135 N.J. 349 (1994). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Shuster in his thorough and well-reasoned twenty-two-page written opinion.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3332-07T3

November 25, 2008