MICHAEL A. D'ANTONIO VS. RETAINED REALTY, INC. (L-4562-15, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0011-17T2
MICHAEL A. D'ANTONIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RETAINED REALTY, INC.
NETWORK TRUCKING, and
BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
PATRICIA EGAN,
Defendant.
_____________________________
Submitted January 24, 2019 – Decided February 11, 2019
Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-4562-15.
Michael A. D'Antonio, appellant, pro se.
The Weir Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for respondent
Retained Realty, Inc. (Richard A. Epstein, on the brief).
George W. Wright & Associates, attorneys for
respondent Network Trucking (Narinder S. Parmar, on
the brief).
The Law Offices of Richard Malagiere, PC, attorneys
for respondent Bergen County Sheriff's Department
(Leonard E. Seaman, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Michael A. D'Antonio appeals from a February 21, 2017 order
granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Retained Realty, Network
Trucking, and the Bergen County Sheriff's Department. He also appeals from
an April 7, 2017 order denying reconsideration. Our review of the summary
judgment order is de novo. Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 479
(2016). We review the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion.
Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996). After reviewing
the record, we find no legal error in the summary judgment order and no abuse
of discretion in the order denying reconsideration. We affirm substantially for
the reasons stated in the written opinions issued by Judge Estela M. De La Cruz
on February 21, 2017, and April 7, 2017.
The background facts are set forth in detail in Judge De La Cruz's opinion
and need not be repeated here. The Chancery Division entered a final judgment
A-0011-17T2
2
of foreclosure in 2012, and plaintiff's property was sold at a sheriff's sale. The
successful bidder assigned the property to Retained Realty, which in turn evicted
plaintiff from the foreclosed premises in 2014. In a subsequent Law Division
action, plaintiff claimed that some of his property was lost or damaged during
the 2014 eviction. Judge De La Cruz dismissed plaintiff's claims and ordered
plaintiff to reimburse Retained Realty for the security deposit and rent he
wrongfully collected from a tenant after the sheriff's sale. This appeal followed.
In addressing plaintiff's appeal, we first note its limited scope. By order
dated January 29, 2018, we specifically barred plaintiff from pursuing an appeal
of the 2012 foreclosure judgment, an appeal that would have been years out of
time. However, contrary to our order, much of plaintiff's appellate brief focuses
on alleged errors in the foreclosure action. Plaintiff's remaining arguments are
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion, except as noted in the following
brief comments. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We agree with Judge De La Cruz that Retained Realty is not liable for
alleged wrongdoing by Network Trucking, the independent contractor it hired
to move plaintiff's possessions out of the foreclosed premises and into a storage
facility. See Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 145 N.J. 144, 156 (1996). Plaintiff's claims
against Network Trucking are barred because he missed the ninety-day statutory
A-0011-17T2
3
time limit for filing a claim against a moving company. See N.J.S.A. 45:14D-
12(b). Plaintiff's claims against Network Trucking for allegedly missing items
are also barred by the terms of two releases he signed at the conclusion of the
eviction. Plaintiff's Notice of Tort Claim against the Bergen County Sheriff's
Office was defective in failing to state the value of the goods allegedly lost or
damaged in the move. See N.J.S.A. 59:8-4(f). Plaintiff also failed to present
the trial court with legally competent evidence of the value of the allegedly lost
or damaged items.
Affirmed.
A-0011-17T2
4