MICHAEL MARTIN VS. CONIFER-LECHASE CONSTRUCTION, LLC,Â(L-2649-15, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1901-16T2
MICHAEL MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONIFER-LECHASE CONSTRUCTION,
LLC, CONIFER REALTY, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________
Submitted October 24, 2017 – Decided November 14, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Civil Part, Burlington County,
Docket No. L-2649-15.
Dennis E. Block, attorney for appellant.
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin,
attorneys for respondents (Walter F. Kawalec,
III, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Michael Martin appeals from a December 2, 2016
order granting summary judgment, dismissing his amended complaint
on statute of limitations grounds. We review the trial court's
summary judgment order de novo. See Davis v. Brickman Landscaping,
Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405 (2014). Likewise, we owe no deference to
a trial court's legal interpretations. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v.
Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). After reviewing
the record with those standards in mind, we affirm for the reasons
cogently stated by Judge Aimee R. Belgard in her supplemental
letter opinion dated February 10, 2017. Plaintiff's appellate
arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant additional
discussion beyond the following brief comments. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Plaintiff was employed by Gary F. Gardner, Inc. to perform
inspections and correct punch-list items at an assisted living
facility that was under construction. Conifer-LeChase
Construction, Inc. (LeChase) was building the facility and Conifer
Realty, Inc. (Conifer) was in charge of maintenance. Plaintiff
slipped and fell while working at the facility on November 25,
2013. He claimed that someone employed by Conifer had used the
wrong kind of wax on the floor. Plaintiff admitted at his
deposition that, at the time of his fall, he knew the name of his
employer and he knew the identities of the construction contractor
and the maintenance company. In fact, he filed a workers'
compensation claim against Gary F. Gardner, Inc. in 2014.
2 A-1901-16T2
Almost two years after the accident, as the statute of
limitations (SOL) was about to expire, plaintiff filed a complaint
naming Gary F, Gardner, Inc., and "John Doe's (1-4)" as defendants.
He did not file an amended complaint, naming LeChase and Conifer
as defendants, until after the SOL had expired. Nor did he serve
either of those defendants with the original complaint before the
SOL expired.
Judge Belgard concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to
rely on the relation-back doctrine or the fictitious pleading
rule. See R. 4:9-3; R. 4:26-4. On this appeal, plaintiff solely
relies on the relation back doctrine, R. 4:9-3. However, there
is no evidence that LeChase and Conifer had notice of plaintiff's
lawsuit within the SOL. See R. 4:9-3(1). Further, plaintiff
admitted that, at the time the accident occurred, he knew both
parties' identities, and their roles at the construction site.
Plaintiff also admitted that he knew, prior to the accident, that
a Conifer employee had used the wrong wax on the floor. There is
no legally competent evidence in the record explaining why he did
not name both defendants in the original complaint.
Affirmed.
3 A-1901-16T2