Robinson v. 160 Spring Valley RD LLC
| Docket Number | A-1271-21 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 2023 |
| Parties | JOHN ARTHUR ROBINSON and LUCILLE DINA COLUMBO ROBINSON, Plaintiffs-Respondents/ Cross-Appellants, v. 160 SPRING VALLEY RD LLC, and 47TH STREET GROUP, LLC, Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Respondents, and LAW OFFICE OF MARK J. SOKOLICH, ESQ., Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — 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.
Submitted February 28, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. C-000053-21.
Graff Silverstein LLP, attorneys for appellants/cross-respondents (David Graff, on the briefs).
Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte, PA, attorneys for respondents/cross-appellants (Andrew P. Bolson and Erik Topp on the briefs).
Before Judges Gilson, Gummer, and Messano.
In this residential-construction dispute, defendants 160 Spring Valley Rd LLC and 47th Street Group, LLC appeal and plaintiffs John Arthur Robinson and Lucille Dina Columbo Robinson cross-appeal an order granting summary judgment as to plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim, dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs' fraud claims and defendants' counterclaims, and requiring the return of plaintiffs' $90,000 down payment. We affirm.
We discern the material facts from the summary-judgment record viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Rivera v. Cherry Hill Towers, LLC, 474 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App. Div. 2022).
At the time of the transaction at issue, plaintiffs were a married couple, residing in a house in Franklin Lakes. John was an equities trader, and Lucille was the community director of the Franklin Lakes Recreation and Parks Department.[1] Their two children were attending the University of Miami. Plaintiffs owned two properties: their home in Franklin Lakes and a townhouse in Parkland, Florida. Defendants are developers of a series of condominium units in Montvale.[2]
On December 10, 2019, John executed a document entitled "THE ALEXA CONDOMINIUM AGREEMENT OF SALE OF REAL ESTATE" (the "Agreement"). In the Agreement, plaintiffs were identified as the buyer, and defendants were identified as the seller. Someone executed the Agreement on behalf of 47th Street Group, LLC. As set forth in the Agreement, plaintiffs were purchasing a "Unit" located in the Alexa Condominium in Montvale. The "TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE" was $900,000. As required by the Agreement, plaintiffs paid a $90,000 deposit, delivering it to defendant's attorney.
According to the Agreement, the "approximate location, size and layout of the Unit . . . may be found in Exhibit 'C' of the Condominium's Master Deed." In paragraph four of the Agreement, defendants "agree[d] to include in the construction of the Unit the items set forth in the Standard Features Sheet, a copy of which is attached." In paragraph thirteen, the parties agreed:
STANDARD CHOICES: SUBSTITUTION OF MATERIALS: All of the standard items are set forth in the attached Standard Features Sheet. If any standard item becomes unavailable or the Seller elects to replace it with a similar product, the Buyer authorizes the Seller to substitute these materials, appliances, equipment, etc. with others of equal or better quality. The Seller does not offer any options, upgrades or extras.
In paragraph fifteen, which was entitled "SELLER'S LIMITED WARRANTY," the parties agreed, among other things:
In paragraph twenty-four, which was entitled "ALTERATIONS," the parties agreed:
Construction will be substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications of Seller, except for extras specifically authorized by Purchaser. The Seller will not accept any request from the Buyer to alter the construction plans and specifications. No one is permitted or authorized to commit the Seller to make any such alterations.
Paragraph twenty-six, which was entitled "BREACH OF A PROMISE BY THE BUYER," stated, among other things:
The Buyer and the Seller acknowledge that the plans and specifications for the unit to be constructed have been specifically prepared for and approved by the Buyer that this unit is therefore unique by reason of this Buyer's specific requests and determinations.
Regarding closing, the Agreement provided:
The Buyer will be under no obligation to close title unless the Seller provides a [t]emporary or [p]ermanent [c]ertificate of [o]ccupancy issued by the Borough of Montvale at or before the time of closing of title. The Buyer agrees that he/she and his/her selected lender will close title and pay all money due the Seller after the [c]ertificate of [o]ccupancy is issued even though certain outside work has not been completed, such as landscaping installation and the installation of the driveway. Under no circumstances shall any escrow be held at or prior to closing with respect to incomplete or "punchlist" items.
The parties agreed that in the event of a default, "the sole responsibility of [defendants] for non-performance under this [a]greement for reasons beyond [defendants'] control shall be limited to the return of deposit monies . . . ." The Agreement also contained an integration clause:
ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, the [a]pplication for [r]egistration filed with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, and the [p]ublic [o]ffering [s]tatement contains the entire agreement between [defendants] and [plaintiffs]. Neither party has made any other agreement or promise which is not contained in this Agreement.
John's signature appeared on a page of the Agreement that was numbered thirteen. The signature of the representative of 47th Street Group, LLC appeared on the following page, which was numbered fourteen. On page fourteen, after the signature of 47th Street Group, LLC's representative and lines for information about the parties' attorneys, the following was set forth:
The next page, which was numbered fifteen, contained one line:
Gruber believed the fourth-floor "attic space" was uninhabitable because it did not comply with a section of International Residential Code requiring emergency escape and rescue openings. Gruber testified, According to Gruber, project manager Felix Herrera advised him that "the homeowner that was purchasing that unit required these beds." Gruber told Herrera, "he can't have them up there as per the code."
In a September 10, 2020 email message, Herrera advised plaintiffs that "final building inspection [had] stop[ped] by to inspect the home and, unfortunately, they are not allowing any bedrooms in the loft." Herrera told plaintiffs he would [3] John responded to Herrera the next day advising that the He asked Herrera to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial