Chryssoula Arsenis v. Steven Rada

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: March 10, 2025
• Docket: A-2352-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2352-22

CHRYSSOULA ARSENIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STEVEN RADA, EMR PROXY FLOORING CORP., and RICHARD KLEIN,

Defendants-Respondents. ______________________________

Submitted December 18, 2024 – Decided March 10, 2025

Before Judges Rose and Puglisi.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. DC-005024-21.

Chryssoula Arsenis, appellant pro se.

Respondents have not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Chryssoula Arsenis appeals from a March 24, 2023 Special Civil

Part order, denying reconsideration of a December 23, 2022 order that dismissed her complaint because the allegations against defendants EMR Epoxy Flooring

Corp., Steven Rada, and Richard Klein were resolved in arbitration. We affirm.

According to the limited record provided on appeal, 1 plaintiff hired

defendants to install a waterproof system at her home. Defendants estimated the

project would cost $4,725 and plaintiff paid the initial $2,362.50 deposit. At

some point thereafter, a dispute arose concerning the permits for the project.

In her narrative complaint, plaintiff claimed Klein experienced problems

obtaining necessary permits then injured his hand and was unable to complete

the job. Plaintiff further asserted she called EMR's owner, Rada, who did not

respond and, as such, she hired another contractor to complete the job.

In their counterclaim, defendants claimed they incurred $2,525.91 in costs

to complete the project and left their equipment and materials at plaintiff's

property. Defendants further asserted: plaintiff initiated an arbitration request

pursuant to FairClaims, an online arbitration platform, to resolve their dispute;

defendants agreed to the request; a hearing was scheduled for May 24, 2021;

plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing; and the arbitrator entered an award for

1 At all stages of the litigation, plaintiff has represented herself. A-2352-22 2 defendants. Defendants set forth the terms of the award in paragraph 17 of their

counterclaim2:

1. Defendant may retain the deposit of $2,362.50 and will be entitled to an additional $446.42 if the material and equipment on [p]laintiff's property is not returned within 14 days of issuance of the award.

2. Defendant may be entitled to 70% of the labor expended on the job.

Notwithstanding the arbitration award, plaintiff filed her complaint

against defendants in the Special Civil Part. Plaintiff sought costs associated

with completing the project. In the final paragraph of the complaint plaintiff

also "request[ed] a Judgment of Consumer Fraud" for $8,025. Plaintiff claimed

Klein never provided proof of his injury and EMR failed to complete the job and

pass inspection.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Immediately

following argument on the December 23, 2022 return date, the motion judge

denied both applications. In his oral decision, the judge found the arbitration

award barred his consideration of the motions and warranted dismissal of the

complaint. The judge explained unless plaintiff claimed "the arbitrator's award

2 The arbitrator's award was not provided on appeal. A-2352-22 3 . . . was not in accordance with the law," that is, if the award was "arbitra[ry],

capricious, or unreasonable," she could not file "the same claim in th[at] court."

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. During oral argument before the

same judge on March 24, 2023, plaintiff asserted her attempts to postpone the

arbitration proceedings were unsuccessful. The judge explained the court could

not "overrule an arbitrator's decision whether or not to postpone a hearing."

Immediately following argument, the judge issued an oral decision

denying plaintiff's motion and reiterating his prior findings. Referencing the

arbitrator's decision, the judge also found no evidence that the award was

"arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." The judge noted even though plaintiff

"failed to appear at the arbitration . . . the arbitrator in her decision . . .

recount[ed] that she reviewed all the documents and all the material provided by

[plaintiff] in reaching her decision." The judge found plaintiff failed to satisfy

the standard for reconsideration.

For the first time on appeal, plaintiff summarily argues enforcement of the

arbitration award violates public policy and "the arbitration clause" set forth in

the parties' contract 3 "is neither binding nor relevant to the dispute at hand,"

which "should be resolved in court." Generally, we "decline to consider

3 The contract was not provided on appeal. A-2352-22 4 questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity

for such a presentation is available unless the questions so raised on appeal go

to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest."

Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012) (quoting Nieder

v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)). Those exceptions do not

apply here.

Discerning no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's decision on

reconsideration, Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021), we

decline to disturb the March 24, 2023 order. We affirm for the reasons

articulated by the motion judge in his accompanying oral decision.

To the extent not expressly addressed, plaintiff's remaining contentions

lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-2352-22 5