CITY OF JERSEY CITY v. SHAWKI KHALIL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0779-16T3

CITY OF JERSEY CITY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHAWKI KHALIL,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________

              Argued January 30, 2018 – Decided February 13, 2018

              Before Judges Fisher, Fasciale and Sumners.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-
              1842-14.

              Michael F. O'Connor argued the cause for
              appellant (Escandon, Fernicola, Anderson &
              Covelli, attorneys; Michael F. O'Connor, on
              the brief).

              John J. Hallanan, III, Assistant Corporation
              Counsel, argued the cause for respondent
              (Jeremy A. Farrell, Corporation Counsel,
              attorney; John J. Hallanan, III, on the
              brief).

PER CURIAM
       In this breach of contract case, defendant appeals from a

September    9,     2016    order     awarding   the    City    of    Jersey     City

(plaintiff)    $98,500.         Judge    Mary    K.    Costello       analyzed    the

undisputed facts, entered the order, and rendered an extensive

written decision.           We affirm substantially for the thoughtful

reasons given by Judge Costello.

       Plaintiff conducted an auction of a taxi license at which

defendant was the successful bidder. Defendant signed a memorandum

of sale, paid an $8000 deposit for the license, but refused to pay

the balance due of $282,500.           Plaintiff held a second auction, at

which    defendant's       daughter    successfully    bid     $184,000    for   the

license.    The judge awarded plaintiff the amount of money it would

have     received    had    defendant     complied     with     his    contractual

obligation to pay the balance due.

       On appeal, defendant argues the judge erred by entering the

award because he was unaware that failing to pay the balance due

exposed him to more than the forfeiture of his $8000 deposit.

Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to adhere to auction

requirements imposed by a local ordinance.                And he asserts that

plaintiff's claim is barred by the entire controversy doctrine

(ECD).

       We conclude that defendant's arguments are without sufficient

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.                         R. 2:11-

                                         2                                  A-0779-16T3
3(e)(1)(E).     In addition to affirming primarily based on Judge

Costello's comprehensive written decision, we add the following

brief remarks.

     We are unaware of any legal obligation that would require

plaintiff to inform prospective taxi-license bidders that damages

for failing to pay the balance due may exceed forfeiture of the

deposit.   Defendant argues the sale of a taxi license is like the

sale of an alcohol license, and points to 
N.J.S.A. 33:1-19.3,

which pertains to the sale of an alcohol license, as well as

related regulations promulgated by the Office of Attorney General,

Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, purportedly requiring

notice of refunds and forfeitures.            But 
N.J.S.A. 48:16-2.3, which

governs the issuance of taxi licenses, and Section 307-27(C) of

plaintiff's Ordinance 13.101, which outlines the procedure for

taxi-license auctions, impose no such notice requirement.

     Defendant's assertions that plaintiff failed to comply with

requirements of the local ordinance are misplaced.                  Here, the

Business Administrator certified that he delegated approval of the

auction procedures to plaintiff's law department.               The Municipal

Clerk   read   verbatim   the   rules       and   regulations   governing   the

auction.   And defendant's refusal to pay the balance of the bid

obviated plaintiff's obligation to issue the license to him. Thus,

we see no violation of Section 307-27(C).

                                        3                              A-0779-16T3
    As to his ECD contention, it would have been premature to

require plaintiff to join this breach of contract claim to any

other   litigation   until   plaintiff   established   its   damages    by

conducting the second auction.

    Affirmed.




                                   4                             A-0779-16T3