Zografos v. Estate of Votra

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Docket Number: A-3935-23
• Decision Date: 26 December 2025
• Citation: Zografos v. Estate of Votra, A-3935-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Dec 26, 2025)
• Parties: KONSTANTINE ZOGRAFOS and ANGELA ZOGAFROS, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ESTATE OF NANCY VOTRA, CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC, SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-22, Defendants-Respondents.

1

KONSTANTINE ZOGRAFOS and ANGELA ZOGAFROS, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ESTATE OF NANCY VOTRA, CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC, SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-22, Defendants-Respondents.

No. A-3935-23

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

December 26, 2025

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 December 9, 2025

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Ocean County, Docket No. L-1165-22.

KG Law Group, LLC, attorneys for appellants (Christopher K Koutsouris, on the brief).

Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP, attorneys for respondents Cyprexx Services, LLC (Diane B. Carvell, on the brief).

Elyse N. Cohen (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP), attorney for respondents Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-22.

Law Office of Burke &Potenza, PA, attorneys for respondent Estate of Nancy Votra (Walter H. Schneider, Jr., on the brief).

Before Judges Susswein and Chase.

PER CURIAM.

In this premises liability action, plaintiffs Konstantine and Angela Zografos appeal from two Law Division orders granting summary judgment to defendants Estate of Nancy Votra, Bank of New York Mellon, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, and Cyprexx Services, LLC. We affirm.

I.

We set forth the following facts viewing all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party.^[1] See Crisitello v. St. Theresa Sch., 255 N.J. 200, 218 (2023). In 2006, Nancy Votra executed a mortgage securing a note covering real property on West Calabreeze Way in Little Egg Harbor ("property"). The mortgage was assigned to defendant Bank of New York Mellon ("BNYM").^[2] In 2018, Nancy Votra passed away; per her Last Will and Testament, Holly McNabb and Heather Shwom were appointed co-executors of defendant the Estate of Nancy Votra. Thereafter, the mortgage entered default and BNYM initiated a foreclosure action in July 2019.

In August 2019, the estate initiated eviction proceedings against Nancy Votra's live-in boyfriend because he refused to leave the property or pay rent. After being evicted, McNabb and Shwom knew that the ex-boyfriend would jump the fence and enter the backyard of the property.

In June 2021, the Chancery Division entered a Foreclosure Judgment in favor of BNYM, and a Sheriff's sale was scheduled for September 7, 2021.

Defendant, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ("SLS"), was enlisted by BNYM as a servicer to "inspect the property . . . for vacancy[,] [a]nd once it's determined that its vacant, . . . take steps through third-party vendors to secure the property. "Accordingly, SLS hired defendant Cyprexx Services, LLC ("Cyprexx") to secure and inspect the property. In return, Cyprexx sent orders to its third-party vendors with instructions to: (1) confirm occupancy; (2) complete a damage checklist; (3) verify the property was secure; and (4) take a full set of interior and exterior photos. The vendors reported to Cyprexx that there was significant damage to the property and that the property was not secure and recommended additional services to secure the property.

The Noble Group, LLC ("Noble"), an entity that was contemplating purchasing the property at the Sheriff's sale, hired plaintiff as an independent contractor to inspect the property and complete a checklist of needed repairs. According to plaintiff, he performed over one thousand jobs for Noble.

On September 1, 2021, plaintiff went to the property. Prior to arriving at the property, plaintiff did not inform anyone of his intention to inspect the property, and he was unaware whether Noble informed anyone of his inspection. Plaintiff testified he never contacted a property owner to seek permission to enter a property.

Upon arrival, plaintiff "could tell that the property was vacant. "Plaintiff noted "there was a lock on the front door[,]" but "the gate was wide open." Furthermore, plaintiff admitted there may have been signage at the property although he did not stop to read them.

Notably, Shwom, testifying on behalf of the estate, stated there were multiple signs posted on the property, and showed a photo of a sign which was described as follows: "'Warning' in black writing, there's an underline; underneath it says[,] 'Private Property,' 'private property' is underlined, and underneath that it says[,] 'Keep Out.'" Shwom was unsure whether the signs were still up when plaintiff went to the property.

Plaintiff entered the property through an open gate on the front left side of the property. Once in the backyard, plaintiff identified wooden stairs that ran parallel to the bulkhead and down towards a dock. After viewing the stairs for approximately thirty-seconds from above, plaintiff thought everything looked sturdy.

In his deposition, plaintiff explained the event which allegedly caused his injuries:

So I had taken a few steps down and I suddenly felt the floor give way. And I was significantly high in the ground, so my arm was - so as I started to come down, I had my - I was walking, taking pictures of the bulkhead that was on the opposite side of me. I took a few steps down, I suddenly felt the floor just give out, and my shoulder - my - I guess instinctively I put my arm to grab the railing. And the railing is what kept me held up. From there I - once that collapsed, I was able to pull myself back up and then climb up the bulkhead to get out. And I had noticed that the step itself didn't break, it actually came undone. So the step itself was still complete. It didn't break, it didn't crack, it was still a complete step.

Plaintiff then pulled himself up and over the railing and climbed up the bulkhead. Plaintiff recalled "feeling a rush of pain[]" immediately after the fall. Thereafter, plaintiff called 9-1-1, was taken in an ambulance, treated for his injuries at a hospital, and released the same day.

Following the incident, plaintiff was treated for almost a year by Rothman Orthopedics, and a physical therapist, whom he saw two or three times a week. Following treatment at Rothman Orthopedics, plaintiff was referred to another doctor, who performed shoulder surgery. Following surgery, plaintiff received physical therapy treatment.

In June 2022, plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages from the estate, Cyprexx, SLS, and BNYM (collectively "defendants ") for injuries sustained at the property.

In December 2023, the estate moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed. That same month, the court extended the discovery end date ("DED") by an additional one-hundred-and-twenty days, to May 7, 2024. Notably, the court ordered, inter alia, "[p]laintiffs to serve expert report(s) by March 15, 2024[.]" (Emphasis added).

On April 12, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the estate's summary judgment motion. The court, after "find[ing] that the plaintiff was a trespasser within the meaning of the law[,]" granted the estate's motion. The court commented that summary judgment was applicable to all defendants "because the same theory would go to anybody who was involved in this case."

In light of the court's comments, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and we issued a non-finality letter to plaintiffs and then dismissed plaintiffs' appeal without prejudice. Konstantine Zografos and Angela Zografos v. Estate of Nancy Votra, Cyprexx Services, LLC Et.al., No. A-002949-23 (App. Div. June 26, 2024).

In May 2024, Cyprexx, SLS, and BNYM each filed for summary judgment. The court held oral argument on defendants' motions in July. After finding no special relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants, the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

This appeal followed.

II.

We review a summary judgment determination de novo. Comprehensive Neurosurgical, P.C. v. Valley Hosp., 257 N.J. 33, 71 (2024). Applying the same standard as that employed by the trial court, we review the record to determine whether there are material factual disputes and, if not, whether the undisputed facts viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the non-moving party, nonetheless entitle defendant to judgment as a matter of law. Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73, 78 (2022). We owe no deference to the trial court's legal analysis. See Palisades at Fort Lee Condo. Ass'n v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 230 N.J. 427, 442 (2017) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Township of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

III.

A.

On appeal, plaintiff contends the court erred by granting summary judgment before discovery ended and because there were genuine issues of material fact in the record concerning whether: 1) plaintiff was a trespasser or a discovered trespasser; 2) the property was abandoned; and 3) there were dangerous conditions existing at the property which were foreseeable.

To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove defendant: (1) owed a duty of care; (2) breached that duty; (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury; and (4) damages. Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 51 (2015) (citing Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 584 (2008)). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving negligence. See Reichert v. Vegholm, 366 N.J.Super. 209, 213 (App. Div. 2004).

In sum, the plaintiff "must prove that unreasonable acts or omissions by the defendant proximately caused [thei...