BARRY HIRSCHBERG v. BOROUGH OF NORTHVALE (C-000102-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0606-19
BARRY HIRSCHBERG and
ELIZABETH HIRSCHBERG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/
Cross-Respondents,
v.
BOROUGH OF NORTHVALE,
BOROUGH OF NORTHVALE
PLANNING BOARD, JORGE
PEREZ and EMMA PEREZ,
Defendants-Respondents,
and
NER FAMILY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
ROBERT U. DEL VECCHIO,
ROBERT A. DEL VECCHIO,
Defendants-Respondents/
Cross-Appellants.
______________________________
Argued January 12, 2022 – Decided February 16, 2022
Before Judges Gilson, Gooden Brown, and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. C-
000102-19.
Barry Hirschberg argued the cause pro se.
Mariya Gonor argued the cause for respondents/cross-
appellants NER Family Associates, Rubert U. Del
Vecchio and Robert A. Del Vecchio (Beattie Padovano,
LLC, attorneys; Antimo Del Vecchio, of counsel and
on the briefs; Mariya Gonor, on the briefs).
Justin D. Santagata argued the cause for respondent
Borough of Northvale (Kaufman Semeraro & Leibman,
LLP, attorneys; Justin D. Santagata, on the brief).
Gregg F. Paster argued the cause for respondent
Borough of Northvale Planning Board (Gregg F. Paster
& Associates, attorneys; Gregg F. Paster, of counsel
and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this quiet-title action regarding a right-of-way (ROW), plaintiffs appeal
orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss and an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of those orders. Defendants NER Family Associates,
LLC, Robert U. Del Vecchio, and Robert A. Del Vecchio (collectively, NER
defendants) cross-appeal the denial of their cross-motion for sanctions against
plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 1:4-8. We affirm the orders substantially for the
reasons set forth in Judge James J. DeLuca's comprehensive, written decisions.
A-0606-19
2
As Judge DeLuca held granting defendants' motions to dismiss,
"[r]egardless of how [p]laintiffs frame the issue, . . . [p]laintiffs again seek to
assert that they have an exclusive right to the ROW. Such issue was at the heart
of each of the previous actions and at every level of the New Jersey court system,
[p]laintiffs' arguments have been rejected." He correctly concluded, "[a]s such,
the [c]omplaint . . . is ripe for dismissal."
During oral argument, plaintiff Barry Hirschberg urged us to reverse,
contending this case must proceed so the metes and bounds of plaintiffs' property
could be established and plaintiffs would know where they can install a fence.
We disagree. The metes and bounds of their property are set forth in the October
4, 1978 deed memorializing plaintiffs' acquisition of the property from the prior
owners. Subject to local ordinances, plaintiffs can install a fence on that
property; they cannot install a fence beyond that property. As Judge DeLuca
found, plaintiffs' efforts to prove an exclusive ownership interest in land beyond
those metes and bounds have been consistently rejected by our courts.
We review a trial court's denial of a motion to impose frivolous-litigation
sanctions under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See McDaniel v. Man Wai Lee,
419 N.J. Super. 482, 497-98 (App. Div. 2011). Because Judge DeLuca did not
A-0606-19
3
abuse his discretion in denying the NER defendants' cross-motion for sanctions,
we also affirm that aspect of his orders.
Affirmed.
A-0606-19
4