MICHAEL SUKENIK VS. MARINA DIZIK(DC-14769-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)DCPP VS. K.M. AND R.A.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.M.(FG-09-101-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4053-15T3
MICHAEL SUKENIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARINA DIZIK,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________
Argued May 15, 2017 – Decided June 7, 2017
Before Judges Currier and Geiger.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Special Civil Part, Bergen
County, Docket No. DC-14769-15.
Michael Confusione argued the cause for
appellant (Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys;
Mr. Confusione, of counsel and on the brief).
Marina Ginzburg argued the cause for
respondent (Ruiz Doolan Law Firm, LLC,
attorneys; Ms. Ginzburg, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Michael Sukenik appeals from a May 5, 2016 order
granting defendant Marina Dizik's motion for involuntary dismissal
at the close of the presentation of plaintiff's case. We affirm.
Plaintiff was the sole witness to testify at the Special
Civil Part trial. He testified he and defendant dated for
approximately one and one half years. Beginning in January 2014,
they spent every weekend and holiday together, with plaintiff
frequently staying overnight in defendant's home. Plaintiff moved
into defendant's home on February 8, 2015.
Plaintiff claimed he spent substantial sums not only on mutual
expenses such as vacations and dinners, but also on needed
improvements to defendant's home and property because the home was
in poor condition. The improvements included replacing windows
and undertaking interior and exterior repairs. Plaintiff
testified he spent $8,850.36 for materials and a sprinkler system
repair. The bills he incurred and his credit card statements were
admitted into evidence. Plaintiff also contributed his labor,
which he valued at $3,000, and $1,500 per month toward the mortgage
payment.
According to plaintiff, the relationship ended shortly after
he underwent major kidney surgery on June 18, 2015, when defendant
demanded he move out of her home. Two months after moving out,
plaintiff filed this action seeking recovery for his expenses and
the value of his time spent undertaking the home improvements. He
claimed damages totaling $11,850.36. Defendant denied liability,
contending that the improvements made to her home were gifts.
2 A-4053-15T3
Plaintiff's trial testimony was sparse. Noticeably absent
was any testimony that defendant asked plaintiff to undertake the
home improvements, promised to pay him for his services, or
promised to reimburse him for his expenditures. Nor was there any
evidence that plaintiff expected to be paid for his labor or
reimbursed for his costs. When asked whether he had a contract
or written agreement with defendant, plaintiff testified he was
not in that kind of business relationship with her. Similarly,
his answers to interrogatories omitted reference to any contract
or agreement with defendant. In fact, plaintiff admitted that
defendant never promised to pay him, or to give him anything of
value, in exchange for the windows he installed or the other
repairs that he performed. Plaintiff candidly admitted it was
because of the nature of their break-up that he needed to recover,
at least partially, what he invested to improve defendant's home.
Defendant moved for an involuntary dismissal under Rule 4:37-
2(b) at the close of plaintiff's case. In an oral decision, the
trial judge granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.
On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial judge erred by
dismissing his case because he was entitled to recover damages
under the doctrines of unjust enrichment, detrimental reliance,
quantum meruit, and quasi-contract. Defendant contends the judge
3 A-4053-15T3
properly dismissed plaintiff's claims, arguing that the
improvements were unconditional gifts. Defendant further
contends: (1) there was no contract between the parties that would
allow plaintiff to recover; (2) the doctrine of unjust enrichment
does not apply to irrevocable gifts; (3) the theories of quantum
meruit and quasi-contact do not apply when there is no expectation
between the parties of repayment; and (4) the doctrine of
detrimental reliance does not apply as defendant made no promises
to plaintiff.
"A motion for involuntary dismissal is premised 'on the ground
that upon the facts and upon the law the plaintiff has shown no
right to relief.'" ADS Assoc. v. Oritani Sav. Bank, 219 N.J. 496,
510 (2014) (quoting R. 4:37-2(b)). The "motion shall be denied
if the evidence, together with legitimate inferences therefrom,
could sustain a judgment in plaintiff's favor." Ibid. (quoting
R. 4:37-2(b)). "If the court, accepting as true all the evidence
which supports the position of the party defending against the
motion and according him the benefit of all inferences which can
reasonably and legitimately be deduced therefrom, finds that
reasonable minds could differ, then the motion must be denied."
Id. at 510-11 (citation omitted). "Stated differently, dismissal
is appropriate when no rational [factfinder] could conclude from
the evidence that an essential element of the plaintiff's case is
4 A-4053-15T3
present." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment
2.1 on R. 4:37-2(b) (citing Pitts v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 337 N.J.
Super. 331, 340 (App. Div. 2001)). "An appellate court applies
the same standard when it reviews a trial court's grant or denial
of a Rule 4:37-2(b) motion for involuntary dismissal." ADS Assoc.,
supra, 219 N.J. at 511.
"A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal
consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to
any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of
Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). We review a trial court's
interpretation and application of the law de novo. ADS Assoc.,
supra, 219 N.J. at 511.
We are satisfied that the trial judge's grant of defendant's
motion for an involuntary dismissal was appropriate as plaintiff
presented insufficient evidence to sustain his burden of proof on
his causes of action. Plaintiff did not enter into a contract
with defendant. Defendant did not promise to reimburse plaintiff
for the cost of materials or the value of his labor. Plaintiff
had no expectation of renumeration or compensation for undertaking
the improvements. Plaintiff has not shown detrimental reliance.
The home improvements were not undertaken in contemplation of any
future event. Instead, they were unconditional gifts that were
complete upon delivery. See Jennings v. Cutler, 288 N.J. Super.
5 A-4053-15T3
553, 562 (App. Div. 1996) (boyfriend's actions manifested his
intent to give girlfriend mortgage as gift); see also In re Dodge,
50 N.J. 192, 216 (1967); Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 29
(1988). Accordingly, there is no basis for equitable recovery
under the theories of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, or quasi-
contract. The trial court correctly determined that there was no
basis for plaintiff to recover damages for the cost or value of
those unconditional gifts.
Affirmed.
6 A-4053-15T3