GRACE S. WONG VS. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION(C-0355-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5596-15T3
GRACE S. WONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________________
Submitted September 28, 2017 – Decided October 11, 2017
Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No.
C-0355-15.
Grace S. Wong, appellant pro se.
Dilworth Paxson, LLP, attorneys for respondent
(Francis P. Maneri, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from the July 28, 2016 order denying her
motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
The parties are fully familiar with the lengthy procedural
history of this matter that is fully set forth in the thorough
written opinion rendered by Judge Robert Contillo on April 29,
2016. Therefore, a brief summary will suffice here.
Together with her husband and the couple's limited liability
company, plaintiff owned a property in Ramsey. On August 18,
2014, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure with
respect to this property in favor of defendant. Thereafter,
defendant attempted to arrange a sheriff sale of the property.
Defendant sent notice of this sale to plaintiff, her company, and
her attorney. Plaintiff requested two adjournments of the sale
and then filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of her
company. Defendant sent an email to plaintiff and her attorney
advising them of the new date for the sheriff sale. The bankruptcy
court dismissed plaintiff's petition.
Plaintiff's husband then filed a bankruptcy petition of his
own. Defendant adjourned the sheriff sale and notified plaintiff
and her attorney of the new date. The bankruptcy court declined
to stay the scheduled sheriff sale, and the sheriff sold the
property to one of defendant's affiliates.
Plaintiff then filed her complaint in the present action,
seeking a ruling that defendant violated the bankruptcy court's
"automatic stay" by proceeding with the sheriff sale. Plaintiff
also alleged that defendant failed to provide her with sufficient
notice concerning the scheduled dates for the sheriff sale. In
2 A-5596-15T3
addition, plaintiff filed a lis pendens against the property with
the county clerk. Defendant removed the matter to the bankruptcy
court, which discharged the lis pendens with prejudice, as well
as a second lis pendens that plaintiff filed shortly thereafter.
The bankruptcy court then returned the matter to the Chancery
Division to address the state law issues raised by the parties.
Following oral argument, Judge Contillo granted defendant's
motion for summary judgment. In his comprehensive written opinion,
the judge found that plaintiff's arguments concerning the
bankruptcy proceeding were fully litigated by the bankruptcy court
and, therefore, plaintiff's claim that the sale of the property
violated the automatic stay was barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Turning to plaintiff's assertion that defendant did not
give her proper notice of the sale, the judge concluded that the
record fully demonstrated that defendant gave plaintiff written
notice of each scheduled date for the sale.
Finally, the judge noted that plaintiff no longer had an
ownership interest in the property and, therefore, he "strongly
caution[ed]" plaintiff not to file a lis pendens against the
property in the future. If plaintiff chose to ignore this advice,
the judge ordered plaintiff to give defendant ten days' notice
before filing a new lis pendens on the property.
3 A-5596-15T3
Judge Contillo denied plaintiff's subsequent motion for
reconsideration. In an oral opinion, the judge explained that
plaintiff raised the same arguments that he had considered and
rejected in his April 29, 2016 written decision. In addition, the
judge ordered that plaintiff could not file a future lis pendens
against the property "under this docket number." This appeal
followed.
On appeal, plaintiff challenges the denial of her motion for
reconsideration and argues that: (1) defendant improperly sold
the property at the sheriff sale "without reasonable notice or re-
advertisement"; and (2) the trial judge incorrectly ordered her
not to file a lis pendens on the property in the future.
We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration to
determine whether the trial court abused its discretionary
authority. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 389 (App. Div.
1996). Reconsideration should only be used "for those cases which
fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the [c]ourt has
expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or
irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did
not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of
probative, competent evidence[.]” Id. at 384 (quoting D’Atria v.
D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401-02 (Ch. Div. 1990)).
4 A-5596-15T3
We have considered plaintiff's contentions in light of the
record and applicable legal principles and conclude they are
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We are satisfied that Judge Contillo
properly denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and affirm
substantially for the reasons expressed in his thoughtful written
and oral opinions.
Affirmed.
5 A-5596-15T3