NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3100-23
A&A CONSTRUCTION GROUP CORP.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOB MCLYNN and SARA MCLYNN,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted May 6, 2025 – Decided May 20, 2025
Before Judges Chase and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-3127-20.
Kathleen R. Wall, attorney for appellant.
Byrnes, O'Hern & Heugle, LLC, attorneys for respondents (Daniel J. O'Hern, Jr., on the brief).
PER CURIAM Plaintiff, A&A Construction Group Corp. ("A&A") appeals from an April
26, 2024 order from the Law Division, which denied its motion to vacate an
arbitration award. We affirm.
I.
A&A is in the business of conducting home renovations. Its principal is
Fred Esposito. A&A was hired to perform work on a property in Rumson owned
by defendants Bob and Sara McLynn. The property had been damaged by
Hurricane Sandy, and then further damaged due to deficient renovation work
performed by Ocean's Home Improvements ("Ocean's").
The parties executed three written contracts. Each contract had an
arbitration clause, stipulating that arbitration was to be conducted by the
American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Because there was on-going
litigation against Ocean's, plaintiff alleged that it told defendants it would not
bill for Esposito's services until the litigation concluded. However, defendants
paid plaintiffs over a million dollars during the project, based upon un-itemized
bills submitted by plaintiff. After defendants' litigation against Ocean's settled
in March 2019, plaintiff submitted a bill to defendants for $462,948.25.
When defendants disputed the bill, plaintiff filed a seven-count complaint
in October 2020. On January 22, 2021, the trial court stayed the matter and
A-3100-23 2 granted a consent order for arbitration. Despite a clause in their agreement
stipulating that arbitration would be conducted by the AAA, the parties mutually
agreed to retain a retired judge as the arbitrator.
In September 2023, an arbitration hearing was held. Neither party
requested a "reasoned opinion" from the arbitrator. At the full-day hearing, each
side had an opportunity to present witnesses. Plaintiff sought payment from
defendants in the amount of $462,948.25, relating to the three contracts, for
labor, profit and overhead. Defendants were seeking a determination that
plaintiff violated the Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -229, and
alleged they overpaid plaintiff by $25,348.81. After the hearing, both sides
submitted findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On December 14, 2023, the arbitrator issued the civil arbitration award,
concluding the award was a "No Cause for [p]laintiff and No Cause for
[d]efendants on the [c]ounterclaims." The arbitrator reasoned
[t]he Proposals were time and material [ten percent] Overhead [ten percent] Profit. Fred Esposito was to be paid at the rate of [seventy-five dollars] an hour, billable biweekly. All change orders were required be in writing and signed by the parties, pursuant to these Proposals. Defendants paid a total of $1,169,205.21 pursuant to the Proposals.
Initially billing for plaintiff's labor was done using the [seventy-five dollars] rate plus labor and overhead and
A-3100-23 3 paid. However, a substantial portion of the $462,948.25 plaintiff alleges it is owed, is based on billing first at the rate of [twelve thousand per month] for labor (apparently based on [seventy-five dollars per hour] for [forty] hours a week) and then in 2016, at [ten thousand dollars per month] for labor.
Plaintiff alleges he entered into an oral agreement with defendant Bob McLynn to charge at [ten thousand dollars per month] amount, and to agree to await payment until the conclusion of the lawsuit against Ocean's Home Improvement as well as other subcontractors (That litigation concluded in 2019.). Esposito testified that he was on the job for the same amount of time as subcontractor, JMJ Construction.
Defendant Bob McLynn denies any oral agreement with A&A. McLynn alleges a number of payments were made by the defendants "for labor" but despite his requests for supporting documentation, he never received any breakdowns. Esposito says he was not asked to itemize labor costs.
....
Therefore, despite review of all the exhibits and testimony, no evidence has been presented by plaintiff to prove the number of hours worked by A&A. No written evidence supports the agreement to charge at [ten thousand dollars per month] or delay payment until the first litigation was settled. The accounting provided by plaintiff was prepared for the initial litigation to assist in apportioning the liability of the defendant Ocean and its subs. No supporting documentation for A&A's hours was provided for this accounting. In fact, in his deposition in the underlying case, Esposito testified he did not record his hours in this construction project.
A-3100-23 4 The Proposals required any changes to be in writing. In addition, pursuant to [the CFA] dealing with home improvement contracts: "all changes in the terms and conditions of the contract, shall be in writing."
Plaintiff has the burden of proving the damages it alleges in this case. Oral agreements will not suffice in home improvement contract cases. Therefore, I find that plaintiff has failed to prove entitlement to additional payments for labor, profit and overhead. Despite violating the CFA, plaintiff would be entitled to recover for services rendered under a quantum meruit theory. But again, nothing assists the Arbitrator in determining what services were provided that were unreimbursed.
The arbitrator specifically noted plaintiff did not present any evidence to
prove A&A's work hours, nor any written evidence to support the purported
agreement that defendants would pay ten thousand dollars per month or delay
the payment until the litigation with the former contractor was settled.
On December 21, 2023, plaintiff submitted a reconsideration request to
the arbitrator. On January 18, 2024, the arbitrator filed a signed award, and
plaintiff filed a timely motion to vacate the arbitration award with the Law
Division.
On April 26, 2024, the court heard the motion to vacate the arbitration
award and denied it the same day. Making findings, the court cited to the New
Jersey Arbitration Act ("the Act"), N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23, and reviewed the six
A-3100-23 5 bases for vacating an arbitration award. The court found: no relationship
existed between the arbitrator and defense counsel; the arbitrator considered all
evidence material to the controversy; and the arbitrator fully considered all
arguments presented by the parties.
On June 9, 2024, the arbitrator denied reconsideration. The arbitrator
determined: no conflict of interest arose from the fact that counsel for
defendants and the arbitrator used to live in the same town; the agreements
require a change order to be in writing and signed by the contractor and
customer; and that plaintiff's second argument was never presented at the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-3100-23
A&A CONSTRUCTION GROUP CORP.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOB MCLYNN and SARA MCLYNN,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted May 6, 2025 – Decided May 20, 2025
Before Judges Chase and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-3127-20.
Kathleen R. Wall, attorney for appellant.
Byrnes, O'Hern & Heugle, LLC, attorneys for respondents (Daniel J. O'Hern, Jr., on the brief).
PER CURIAM Plaintiff, A&A Construction Group Corp. ("A&A") appeals from an April
26, 2024 order from the Law Division, which denied its motion to vacate an
arbitration award. We affirm.
I.
A&A is in the business of conducting home renovations. Its principal is
Fred Esposito. A&A was hired to perform work on a property in Rumson owned
by defendants Bob and Sara McLynn. The property had been damaged by
Hurricane Sandy, and then further damaged due to deficient renovation work
performed by Ocean's Home Improvements ("Ocean's").
The parties executed three written contracts. Each contract had an
arbitration clause, stipulating that arbitration was to be conducted by the
American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Because there was on-going
litigation against Ocean's, plaintiff alleged that it told defendants it would not
bill for Esposito's services until the litigation concluded. However, defendants
paid plaintiffs over a million dollars during the project, based upon un-itemized
bills submitted by plaintiff. After defendants' litigation against Ocean's settled
in March 2019, plaintiff submitted a bill to defendants for $462,948.25.
When defendants disputed the bill, plaintiff filed a seven-count complaint
in October 2020. On January 22, 2021, the trial court stayed the matter and
A-3100-23 2 granted a consent order for arbitration. Despite a clause in their agreement
stipulating that arbitration would be conducted by the AAA, the parties mutually
agreed to retain a retired judge as the arbitrator.
In September 2023, an arbitration hearing was held. Neither party
requested a "reasoned opinion" from the arbitrator. At the full-day hearing, each
side had an opportunity to present witnesses. Plaintiff sought payment from
defendants in the amount of $462,948.25, relating to the three contracts, for
labor, profit and overhead. Defendants were seeking a determination that
plaintiff violated the Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -229, and
alleged they overpaid plaintiff by $25,348.81. After the hearing, both sides
submitted findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On December 14, 2023, the arbitrator issued the civil arbitration award,
concluding the award was a "No Cause for [p]laintiff and No Cause for
[d]efendants on the [c]ounterclaims." The arbitrator reasoned
[t]he Proposals were time and material [ten percent] Overhead [ten percent] Profit. Fred Esposito was to be paid at the rate of [seventy-five dollars] an hour, billable biweekly. All change orders were required be in writing and signed by the parties, pursuant to these Proposals. Defendants paid a total of $1,169,205.21 pursuant to the Proposals.
Initially billing for plaintiff's labor was done using the [seventy-five dollars] rate plus labor and overhead and
A-3100-23 3 paid. However, a substantial portion of the $462,948.25 plaintiff alleges it is owed, is based on billing first at the rate of [twelve thousand per month] for labor (apparently based on [seventy-five dollars per hour] for [forty] hours a week) and then in 2016, at [ten thousand dollars per month] for labor.
Plaintiff alleges he entered into an oral agreement with defendant Bob McLynn to charge at [ten thousand dollars per month] amount, and to agree to await payment until the conclusion of the lawsuit against Ocean's Home Improvement as well as other subcontractors (That litigation concluded in 2019.). Esposito testified that he was on the job for the same amount of time as subcontractor, JMJ Construction.
Defendant Bob McLynn denies any oral agreement with A&A. McLynn alleges a number of payments were made by the defendants "for labor" but despite his requests for supporting documentation, he never received any breakdowns. Esposito says he was not asked to itemize labor costs.
....
Therefore, despite review of all the exhibits and testimony, no evidence has been presented by plaintiff to prove the number of hours worked by A&A. No written evidence supports the agreement to charge at [ten thousand dollars per month] or delay payment until the first litigation was settled. The accounting provided by plaintiff was prepared for the initial litigation to assist in apportioning the liability of the defendant Ocean and its subs. No supporting documentation for A&A's hours was provided for this accounting. In fact, in his deposition in the underlying case, Esposito testified he did not record his hours in this construction project.
A-3100-23 4 The Proposals required any changes to be in writing. In addition, pursuant to [the CFA] dealing with home improvement contracts: "all changes in the terms and conditions of the contract, shall be in writing."
Plaintiff has the burden of proving the damages it alleges in this case. Oral agreements will not suffice in home improvement contract cases. Therefore, I find that plaintiff has failed to prove entitlement to additional payments for labor, profit and overhead. Despite violating the CFA, plaintiff would be entitled to recover for services rendered under a quantum meruit theory. But again, nothing assists the Arbitrator in determining what services were provided that were unreimbursed.
The arbitrator specifically noted plaintiff did not present any evidence to
prove A&A's work hours, nor any written evidence to support the purported
agreement that defendants would pay ten thousand dollars per month or delay
the payment until the litigation with the former contractor was settled.
On December 21, 2023, plaintiff submitted a reconsideration request to
the arbitrator. On January 18, 2024, the arbitrator filed a signed award, and
plaintiff filed a timely motion to vacate the arbitration award with the Law
Division.
On April 26, 2024, the court heard the motion to vacate the arbitration
award and denied it the same day. Making findings, the court cited to the New
Jersey Arbitration Act ("the Act"), N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23, and reviewed the six
A-3100-23 5 bases for vacating an arbitration award. The court found: no relationship
existed between the arbitrator and defense counsel; the arbitrator considered all
evidence material to the controversy; and the arbitrator fully considered all
arguments presented by the parties.
On June 9, 2024, the arbitrator denied reconsideration. The arbitrator
determined: no conflict of interest arose from the fact that counsel for
defendants and the arbitrator used to live in the same town; the agreements
require a change order to be in writing and signed by the contractor and
customer; and that plaintiff's second argument was never presented at the
hearing, nor did plaintiff cite any authority to support his position.
On appeal, plaintiff seeks a trial to address the factual and legal issues that
it claims the arbitrator failed to address. Plaintiff also contends the arbitration
award should be vacated because the arbitrator failed to disclose a relationship
with the defendants' attorney.
II.
"Judicial review of an arbitration award is very limited." Bound Brook
Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 11 (2017) (quoting Linden Bd. of Educ.
v. Linden Educ. Ass'n ex rel. Mizichko, 202 N.J. 268, 276 (2010)). We "review
the trial court's decision on a motion to vacate an arbitration award de novo."
A-3100-23 6 Yarborough v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Newark, 455 N.J. Super. 136,
139 (App. Div. 2018) (citing Minkowitz v. Israeli, 433 N.J. Super. 111, 136
(App. Div. 2013)). In reviewing a motion to vacate or confirm an arbitration
award, we must remember "[t]he public policy of this State favors arbitration as
a means of settling disputes that otherwise would be litigated in a court." Badiali
v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Group, 220 N.J. 544, 556 (2015) (citing Cnty. Coll. of Morris
Staff Ass'n v. Cnty. Coll. of Morris, 100 N.J. 383, 390 (1985)). "[T]o ensure
finality, as well as to secure arbitration's speedy and inexpensive nature, there
exists a strong preference for judicial confirmation of arbitration awards. "
Borough of E. Rutherford v. E. Rutherford PBA Local 275, 213 N.J. 190, 201
(2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Middletown Twp. PBA Local 124 v.
Twp. of Middletown, 193 N.J. 1, 10 (2007)).
N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23 sets forth six grounds for vacating an arbitration
award:
(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;
(2) the court finds evident partiality by an arbitrator; corruption by an arbitrator; or misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(3) an arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused
A-3100-23 7 to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to section 15 of this act, so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(4) an arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
(5) there was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection pursuant to subsection c. of section 15 of this act not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or
(6) the arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in section 9 of this act so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
III.
Plaintiff first argues that the matter should be remanded to either AAA
arbitration or to the trial court to address factual and legal issues that the
arbitrator and trial court failed to address. That argument is unpersuasive. The
arbitrator and court considered all evidence material to the controversy
presented by both sides.
N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23(3) permits an arbitration award to be vacated, if, in
pertinent part: "an arbitrator . . . refused to consider evidence material to the
controversy." In the present case, nothing in the record indicates that the
arbitrator failed to consider evidence that was material to this controversy.
A-3100-23 8 Rather, the plaintiff's complaints are with the arbitrator's and court's
determinations of the evidence that was presented.
Although plaintiff contends the arbitrator overlooked facts in making its
decisions, a close review of the record reveals plaintiff is just dissatisfied with
the findings. The arbitrator held a full day hearing, during which each party had
the opportunity to, and did, present witnesses and documentary evidence.
Moreover, both parties submitted their proposed findings and facts, and
conclusions of law, which were all considered when the arbitrator made its
decisions. The trial court correctly determined the arbitrator considered all
relevant facts and correctly denied the motion finding there was no basis under
subsection (3) of the Act to vacate the arbitration award.
We also reject plaintiff's contention that the court should have vacated the
award because the arbitrator had a relationship with defendant that should have
been disclosed prior to arbitration. N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-12(a) "establishes a duty
of reasonable inquiry," providing, in pertinent part, "[b]efore accepting
appointment, an individual who is requested to serve as an arbitrator, after
making a reasonable inquiry, shall disclose to all parties to the agreement . . .
any known facts that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the
impartiality of the arbitrator . . .." Here, as the court noted, and the record
A-3100-23 9 reflects, there was no relationship that existed between the arbitrator and defense
counsel. A "relationship," under the statute, requires more than living in the
same town.
Moreover, plaintiff could have raised the failure-to-disclose issue before,
during, or after the arbitration, up until the date of the award. The court
determined plaintiff knew the arbitrator lived in the same town on the date of
the arbitration but waived his right to raise this issue by waiting until receiving
an unfavorable award. As such, the trial court was correct in determining there
was no relationship to disclose and if there was, it was waived.
Because there was no basis on which to vacate the arbitrator's award, we
find no error in the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion. To the extent
we have not otherwise expressly addressed any of plaintiff's remaining
arguments, we find they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-2(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3100-23 10