JESSE ROSENBLUM VS. BOROUGH OF CLOSTER Â (L-1020-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0097-15T2
    JESSE ROSENBLUM,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    BOROUGH OF CLOSTER and
    BEVERLY ANN WATKINS,
    Defendants-Respondents.
    ________________________________
    Argued January 10, 2017 – Decided July 12, 2017
    Before Judges Reisner and Sumners.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-
    1020-15.
    Jesse Rosenblum, pro se appellant.
    JoAnn Riccardi argued the cause for respondent
    (Edward Rogan & Associates, attorneys; Ms.
    Riccardi, on the brief).
    Donna J. Vellekamp, attorney for respondent
    Beverly Ann Watkins, join in the brief of
    respondent Borough of Closter.
    PER CURIAM
    Plaintiff Jesse Rosenblum appeals Law Division orders of: May
    27, 2015, dismissing his complaint challenging defendant Borough
    of Closter's property tax assessment of property owned by defendant
    Barbara Ann Watkins and sanctioning him legal fees and costs in
    the amount of $1747.50; June 8, 2015, sanctioning him additional
    legal fees and costs of $702.50; and July 20, 2015, denying his
    motion for reconsideration.        We affirm substantially for the
    reasons stated by Judge Lisa A. Firko in her comprehensive written
    riders to the May 27 and July 20 orders.       We add these comments.
    Plaintiff initially filed a complaint in the Tax Court,
    regarding farmland assessments on Watkins' property for the years
    1997 through 2000, which was dismissed.        We affirmed on appeal.
    Rosenblum v. Borough of Closter, No. A-1696-09 (App. Div. March
    30, 2011).    Plaintiff then filed complaints with the Tax Court
    regarding assessments on the same property for the years 2005,
    2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011.       After the Tax Court dismissed the
    complaint on summary judgment, we reversed and remanded for a
    trial on the merits.    Rosenblum v. Borough of Closter, No. A-3340-
    11 (App. Div. May 30, 2013).     Upon remand, after Watkins withdrew
    her   applications   seeking   farmland   assessments,   the   Tax   Court
    entered an order on December 27, 2013, providing the matter was
    dismissed with prejudice because plaintiff withdrew his complaint
    2                             A-0097-15T2
    on   the   understanding    that   the       Borough    would   assess   Watkins'
    property fairly and consistently with applicable law.
    Thereafter,    the    Borough      issued    new    assessments     of   the
    property.    Dissatisfied with the assessments, plaintiff sought a
    conference with the Tax Court.        The request was denied, as was his
    subsequent motion to schedule a trial before the court.                          In
    response, plaintiff filed a four-count complaint with the Law
    Division alleging that: (1) Watkins and the Borough breached their
    "agreement" with him by refusing "to negotiate the finding of fair
    assessible [sic] values which is a condition precedent in the
    Judgments of the Tax Court"; (2) Watkins paid roll-back taxes for
    2012 and 2013 "based on the disputed valuations being contested
    herein";    (3)   Watkins   falsely-swore         her    tax    applications     by
    inflating the acreage of cropland and pastures on her property;
    and (4) that Watkins and the Borough were engaged in a conspiracy
    to illegally qualify her property as farmland.1
    In lieu of filing an answer, the Borough filed a motion to
    dismiss the complaint due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
    Rule 4:6-2(a), and failure to state a claim upon which relief can
    be granted, Rule 4:6-2(e), and sought sanctions under Rule 1:4-
    1
    Approximately nine months later, Watkins sold the property and
    paid all tax arrearages.
    3                                A-0097-15T2
    8(b)(1) for filing a frivolous complaint.               Watkins joined the
    motion.     Argument was held on May 8, 2015.
    On    May   27,2   Judge   Firko   entered   an    order   dismissing
    plaintiff's complaint with prejudice as to both defendants and
    requiring plaintiff to pay the Borough $1,747.50 in legal fees and
    costs.     In the written rider to her decision, the judge explained
    that the Law Division does not have jurisdiction to hear tax
    appeals and that the complaint should have been filed in the Tax
    Court.     Furthermore, the complaint was untimely, as it was not
    filed within the statutory time period to file a tax appeal or
    seek leave to appeal to a reviewing court. See N.J.S.A. 54:3-21;
    R. 2:4-1.
    With respect to sanctions, Judge Firko noted that the Borough
    served plaintiff with a notice pursuant to Rule 1:4-8 that his
    action was frivolous and sanctions would be sought if it was not
    dismissed.     The judge noted that plaintiff was not the usual pro
    se   litigant,    having   filed   numerous   "procedurally      sound"   tax
    appeals in the past, and "it was patently unreasonable for [him]
    to file a tax claim with the Law Division."
    On June 8, 2015, the trial court entered a separate order
    requiring plaintiff to pay an additional $702.50 to the Borough
    2
    Although the order is dated "May 29, 2015," it is marked as
    filed on "May 27, 2015."
    4                               A-0097-15T2
    in accordance with an unopposed affidavit by its counsel detailing
    fees for arguing the motion and submission of a proposed form of
    order.
    Finally, on July 20, 2015, Judge Firko entered an order
    denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.           She attached a
    written rider to the order, with a detailed explanation that the
    motion failed to satisfy Rule 4:49-2 by showing that the initial
    decision was palpably incorrect or irrational.
    On appeal, plaintiff essentially argues that the Borough's
    assessments from June 20, 2014 were unfairly low, and therefore
    he should have the opportunity to file a complaint in the Law
    Division.     Although plaintiff's Notice of Appeal states that he
    is challenging the June 8, 2015 sanction order and the July 20,
    2015 reconsideration order, he does not make any argument before
    us regarding them.
    Our review of a trial court's dismissal of a complaint based
    upon the pleadings pursuant to Rule 4:6-2 motion is de novo. Flinn
    v. Amboy Nat'l Bank, 
    436 N.J. Super. 274
    , 287 (App. Div. 2014).
    "[O]ur inquiry is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of
    the facts alleged on the face of the complaint."          Green v. Morgan
    Props.,     
    215 N.J. 431
    ,   451   (2013)   (quoting   Printing     Mart-
    Morristown, supra, 116 N.J. at 746). "On appeal, review is plenary
    and we owe no deference to the trial judge's conclusions."             State
    5                              A-0097-15T2
    v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc., 
    439 N.J. Super. 462
    , 467 (App.
    Div.   2015)   (citing       Rezem   Family    Assocs.,      LP   v.    Borough          of
    Millstone, 
    423 N.J. Super. 103
    , 114 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
    
    208 N.J. 386
     (2011)).
    Appellate review is "one that is at once painstaking and
    undertaken with a generous and hospitable approach." Green, supra,
    215 N.J. at 451 (quoting Printing Mart-Morristown, supra, 116 N.J.
    at 746).     Nonetheless, dismissal is required "where the pleading
    does not establish a colorable claim and discovery would not
    develop one." Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc., supra, 439 N.J. Super.
    at 467 (citing Camden Cnty. Energy Recovery Assocs. v. N.J. Dep't
    of Envtl. Prot., 
    320 N.J. Super. 59
    , 64 (App. Div. 1999), aff'd
    o.b., 
    170 N.J. 246
    , 786 (2001)).
    Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal
    standards, Judge Firko's decision to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
    with   prejudice   and       sanction    him   fees    and   costs      is    legally
    unassailable.          Plaintiffs'      appellate     arguments        are    without
    sufficient     merit    to    warrant    further      discussion.            R.     2:11-
    3(e)(1)(E).
    Affirmed.
    6                                        A-0097-15T2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-0097-15T2

Filed Date: 7/12/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021