NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0585-23
BOONTON MOSQUE & ISLAMIC LEARNING CENTER INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AMERICAN MUSLIM ASSOCIATION INC.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,
MUHAMMAD ISLAM, MOHAMMAD REHMAN, SHAFI ULLAH, EJAZ KHAN AND SHARIF AMANAT,
Third-Party Defendants- Respondents. ______________________________
Argued January 28, 2025 – Decided February 14, 2025
Before Judges Chase and Vanek. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1567-22.
James M. Turteltaub argued the cause for appellant (Agha & Agha LLP, attorneys; Saif M. Agha, James M. Turteltaub and Linda A. Turteltaub, of counsel and on the brief).
Catherine P. O'Hern argued the cause for respondents (Schenck Price Smith & King, LLP, attorneys; Michael K. Mullen, of counsel; Catherine P. O'Hern, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant and third-party plaintiff, American Muslim Association, Inc.
("AMA") appeals the October 23, 2023 order denying its motion for
reconsideration and granting plaintiff Boonton Mosque & Islamic Learning
Center, Inc.'s ("BMILC"), cross-motion for reconsideration of an August 24,
2023 order dismissing its complaint against third-party defendants with
prejudice for not proving damages from the purchase of a property, and ordering
BMILC to pay $60,398 for its share of the improvement costs of the property.
We affirm.
The subject property is a mosque located in Boonton. AMA is a New
Jersey non-profit founded in July 2010 by two individuals, Dr. Feroz Patka and
Dr. Sharif Amanat. In November 2010, Dr. Patka transferred his fifty percent
share of the property to AMA as a sole contribution. Between 2018 and 2019,
A-0585-23 2 Dr. Amanat had discussed the possibility of selling his fifty percent share of the
property to AMA.
In 2019, BMILC, another non-profit, was formed by the four third-party
defendants ("TPDs"): Mohammad Islam, Mohammad Rehman, Shafi Ullah, and
Ejaz Khan. The TPD's were on the AMA board of directors, and they formed
BMILC without the knowledge of the rest of the AMA board. Shortly after its
formation, BMILC purchased the fifty percent share of the property from Dr.
Amanat for $250,000. The TPD's remained as directors and trustees of both
BMILC and AMA until their resignation from AMA a few months later.
When AMA and BMILC disagreed on how to run the mosque, BMILC
sought the court's intervention by filing an order to show cause and a verified
complaint in January 2020. The court granted BMILC's request for a
preliminary injunction and entered an order requiring the parties to rotate the
use of the mosque prayer space on a weekly schedule. After the two
congregations continued to disagree, the court ordered a sale of the property in
May 2022. AMA's final bid of $1,500,055.50 for BMILC's shares was the
highest bid.
The transfer of BMILC's ownership share to AMA was funded by a
personal donation from Waseem Chaudhary, a member of AMA and President
A-0585-23 3 of Akbar Mosque. Chaudhary's donation specifically funded AMA's purchase
of BMILC's share of the property, and Chaudhary agreed to donate whatever
amount AMA needed to secure the highest bid and acquire the entire property.
The same day AMA obtained its share of the BMILC property, it transferred the
entire property to Akbar Mosque for $10.
On August 24, 2023, the trial court found that the TPDs breached their
fiduciary duty to AMA. However, the trial court determined AMA had failed to
establish damages by a preponderance of the evidence. In holding AMA failed
to establish damages, the trial court relied upon the absence of any evidence to
show the donation by Chaudhary was ever deposited into AMA's bank account
or ever expended from AMA's bank account. The trial court entered an order
awarding judgment for AMA in the amount of $33,925.61 for BMILC's share of
building expenses. The trial court also entered a judgment for AMA against
BMILC in the amount of $60,398, representing half the cost of renovations
performed beginning in 2019.
On October 6, 2023, the trial court denied AMA's motion for
reconsideration and granted BMILC's cross-motion for reconsideration and
vacated the judgment of $60,398.
A-0585-23 4 As a threshold matter, we note plaintiff's notice of appeal states it is
appealing from the court's October 6, 2023 order. "[I]t is only the judgments or
orders or parts thereof designated in the notice of appeal which are subject to
the appeal process and review." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules,
cmt. 6.1 on R. 2:5-1(f)(1) (2024); see 1266 Apt. Corp. v. New Horizon Deli,
Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004); Fusco v. Newark Bd. of Educ.,
349 N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div. 2002). "Consequently, if the notice
designates only the order entered on a motion for reconsideration, it is only that
proceeding and not the order that generated the reconsideration motion that may
be reviewed." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 6.1 on R.
2:5-1(f)(1)(2024). Generally, "earlier orders . . . not included in [appellants']
notice of appeal . . . are not within the scope of [the] appeal." 30 River Ct. E.
Urb. Renewal Co. v. Capograsso, 383 N.J. Super. 470, 473-74 (App. Div. 2006).
It follows that we need not address the merits of the August 24, 2023, order of
judgment. See W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397 N.J. Super.
455, 458 (App. Div. 2008) (stating "[i]t is clear that it is only the orders
designated in the notice of appeal that are subject to the appeal process and
review.").
As for the motion for reconsideration, we have determined:
A-0585-23 5 Reconsideration itself is "a matter within the sound discretion of the [c]ourt, to be exercised in the interest of justice[.]" It is not appropriate merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court or wishes to reargue a motion, but should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence.
[Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010) (citations omitted).]
A party is not permitted to use a motion for reconsideration as a basis for
presenting facts or arguments that could have been provided in opposition to the
original motion. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996).
We will not disturb a trial judge's denial of a motion for reconsideration
under Rule 4:49-2 absent a clear abuse of discretion. Branch v. Cream-O-Land
Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021); Kornbleuth v. Westover, 241 N.J. 289, 301
(2020); Hoover v. Wetzler, 472 N.J. Super. 230, 235 (App. Div. 2022). "[An]
abuse of discretion only arises on demonstration of 'manifest error or
injustice[,]'" Hisenaj v.
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-0585-23
BOONTON MOSQUE & ISLAMIC LEARNING CENTER INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AMERICAN MUSLIM ASSOCIATION INC.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,
MUHAMMAD ISLAM, MOHAMMAD REHMAN, SHAFI ULLAH, EJAZ KHAN AND SHARIF AMANAT,
Third-Party Defendants- Respondents. ______________________________
Argued January 28, 2025 – Decided February 14, 2025
Before Judges Chase and Vanek. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1567-22.
James M. Turteltaub argued the cause for appellant (Agha & Agha LLP, attorneys; Saif M. Agha, James M. Turteltaub and Linda A. Turteltaub, of counsel and on the brief).
Catherine P. O'Hern argued the cause for respondents (Schenck Price Smith & King, LLP, attorneys; Michael K. Mullen, of counsel; Catherine P. O'Hern, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant and third-party plaintiff, American Muslim Association, Inc.
("AMA") appeals the October 23, 2023 order denying its motion for
reconsideration and granting plaintiff Boonton Mosque & Islamic Learning
Center, Inc.'s ("BMILC"), cross-motion for reconsideration of an August 24,
2023 order dismissing its complaint against third-party defendants with
prejudice for not proving damages from the purchase of a property, and ordering
BMILC to pay $60,398 for its share of the improvement costs of the property.
We affirm.
The subject property is a mosque located in Boonton. AMA is a New
Jersey non-profit founded in July 2010 by two individuals, Dr. Feroz Patka and
Dr. Sharif Amanat. In November 2010, Dr. Patka transferred his fifty percent
share of the property to AMA as a sole contribution. Between 2018 and 2019,
A-0585-23 2 Dr. Amanat had discussed the possibility of selling his fifty percent share of the
property to AMA.
In 2019, BMILC, another non-profit, was formed by the four third-party
defendants ("TPDs"): Mohammad Islam, Mohammad Rehman, Shafi Ullah, and
Ejaz Khan. The TPD's were on the AMA board of directors, and they formed
BMILC without the knowledge of the rest of the AMA board. Shortly after its
formation, BMILC purchased the fifty percent share of the property from Dr.
Amanat for $250,000. The TPD's remained as directors and trustees of both
BMILC and AMA until their resignation from AMA a few months later.
When AMA and BMILC disagreed on how to run the mosque, BMILC
sought the court's intervention by filing an order to show cause and a verified
complaint in January 2020. The court granted BMILC's request for a
preliminary injunction and entered an order requiring the parties to rotate the
use of the mosque prayer space on a weekly schedule. After the two
congregations continued to disagree, the court ordered a sale of the property in
May 2022. AMA's final bid of $1,500,055.50 for BMILC's shares was the
highest bid.
The transfer of BMILC's ownership share to AMA was funded by a
personal donation from Waseem Chaudhary, a member of AMA and President
A-0585-23 3 of Akbar Mosque. Chaudhary's donation specifically funded AMA's purchase
of BMILC's share of the property, and Chaudhary agreed to donate whatever
amount AMA needed to secure the highest bid and acquire the entire property.
The same day AMA obtained its share of the BMILC property, it transferred the
entire property to Akbar Mosque for $10.
On August 24, 2023, the trial court found that the TPDs breached their
fiduciary duty to AMA. However, the trial court determined AMA had failed to
establish damages by a preponderance of the evidence. In holding AMA failed
to establish damages, the trial court relied upon the absence of any evidence to
show the donation by Chaudhary was ever deposited into AMA's bank account
or ever expended from AMA's bank account. The trial court entered an order
awarding judgment for AMA in the amount of $33,925.61 for BMILC's share of
building expenses. The trial court also entered a judgment for AMA against
BMILC in the amount of $60,398, representing half the cost of renovations
performed beginning in 2019.
On October 6, 2023, the trial court denied AMA's motion for
reconsideration and granted BMILC's cross-motion for reconsideration and
vacated the judgment of $60,398.
A-0585-23 4 As a threshold matter, we note plaintiff's notice of appeal states it is
appealing from the court's October 6, 2023 order. "[I]t is only the judgments or
orders or parts thereof designated in the notice of appeal which are subject to
the appeal process and review." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules,
cmt. 6.1 on R. 2:5-1(f)(1) (2024); see 1266 Apt. Corp. v. New Horizon Deli,
Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004); Fusco v. Newark Bd. of Educ.,
349 N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div. 2002). "Consequently, if the notice
designates only the order entered on a motion for reconsideration, it is only that
proceeding and not the order that generated the reconsideration motion that may
be reviewed." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 6.1 on R.
2:5-1(f)(1)(2024). Generally, "earlier orders . . . not included in [appellants']
notice of appeal . . . are not within the scope of [the] appeal." 30 River Ct. E.
Urb. Renewal Co. v. Capograsso, 383 N.J. Super. 470, 473-74 (App. Div. 2006).
It follows that we need not address the merits of the August 24, 2023, order of
judgment. See W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397 N.J. Super.
455, 458 (App. Div. 2008) (stating "[i]t is clear that it is only the orders
designated in the notice of appeal that are subject to the appeal process and
review.").
As for the motion for reconsideration, we have determined:
A-0585-23 5 Reconsideration itself is "a matter within the sound discretion of the [c]ourt, to be exercised in the interest of justice[.]" It is not appropriate merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court or wishes to reargue a motion, but should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence.
[Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010) (citations omitted).]
A party is not permitted to use a motion for reconsideration as a basis for
presenting facts or arguments that could have been provided in opposition to the
original motion. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996).
We will not disturb a trial judge's denial of a motion for reconsideration
under Rule 4:49-2 absent a clear abuse of discretion. Branch v. Cream-O-Land
Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021); Kornbleuth v. Westover, 241 N.J. 289, 301
(2020); Hoover v. Wetzler, 472 N.J. Super. 230, 235 (App. Div. 2022). "[An]
abuse of discretion only arises on demonstration of 'manifest error or
injustice[,]'" Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6, 20 (2008) (quoting State v. Torres,
183 N.J. 554, 572 (2005)), and occurs when the trial judge's "decision is 'made
without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies,
or rested on an impermissible basis.'" Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super.
A-0585-23 6 184, 197 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J.
561, 571 (2002)). We discern no abuse of discretion here.
AMA failed to meet its burden under Rule 4:49-2. AMA did not proffer
a controlling decision which the trial court overlooked or as to which it has erred,
and further failed to present any evidence that the judge failed to appreciate or
consider. Neither AMA's motion nor its appeal presents any new evidence for
the court to consider that would establish damages against the TPDs. The trial
court's denial of AMA's motion for reconsideration was well reasoned and
supported by the facts in the record. The court considered all relevant facts and
precedent case law.
AMA also posits that the court should not have granted BMILC's cross-
motion for reconsideration regarding the renovation costs in the amount of
$60,398. Here, the court acknowledged its misunderstanding that the
renovations occurred during the period from 2019 to 2022 when BMILC was a
co-owner of the building with AMA. On reconsideration, the court realized the
renovations occurred in 2016, prior to BMILC's existence. The court properly
determined the assignment of claim entered into evidence was not a sufficient
basis to hold BMILC liable for any renovation costs performed three years
before its property ownership and BMILC had no notice, as the buyer of the
A-0585-23 7 property, it would be obligated to pay for repairs and costs which occurred prior
to its ownership. We conclude BMILC's cross motion for reconsideration was
properly granted based on the court's acknowledgment of its error in the date of
the renovations.
To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendants'
remaining arguments, we deem them without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0585-23 8