Long Valley Realty Holding, LLC v. G & E Services, LLC

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: A-2784-24
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2784-24

LONG VALLEY REALTY HOLDING, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

G & E SERVICES, LLC, E, G & E SERVICES, and JAKE KANISZEWESKI,

Defendants-Respondents. __________________________

Submitted January 21, 2026 – Decided March 13, 2026

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Torregrossa-O'Connor.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-3037-22.

Advokat & Rosenberg, attorneys for appellant (Jeffrey M. Advokat, on the briefs).

Goodman Galluccio and Chessin, attorneys for respondents (Neil Chessin, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Plaintiff, Long Valley Realty Holding, LLC, owner of a building struck

by a box truck owned by G & E Services, LLC 1 and driven by its employee, Jake

Kaniszeweski (collectively defendants), appeals from the May 7, 2025 Law

Division judgment following a bench trial awarding damages to plaintiff after

defendants conceded liability. Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in rejecting

its request for damages in the amount of $112,000 and awarding only $3,650

based on an estimate never presented or admitted at trial.

After a review of the record in light of the applicable law, we conclude

the trial court improperly awarded to plaintiff a damage amount not anchored in

the evidence. We are also not satisfied the court employed the proper legal

standard and methodology to assess the amount of damages caused by

defendants. Thus, we are constrained to vacate the judgment awarding damages

and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

I.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages resulting from the impact of

defendants' truck when it negligently hit plaintiff's building's exterior on

September 21, 2022. When defendants conceded liability, the matter proceeded

1 The record reflects G & E Services, LLC and E, G & E Services are the same entity. A-2784-24 2 to a bench trial solely to determine damages. At trial, plaintiff presented the

testimony of two experts, as well as that of Attia Darwish, the owner of plaintiff

and manager of a bagel shop located in the building.

Darwish testified he was in the building when the truck hit. He described

the building "shaking" and showed pictures depicting the truck and building

right after impact. Glenn Brackmann, plaintiff's engineering expert, testified the

resulting damage to the building "was quite obvious." Brackmann described

observing several "components to the damage" that he believed, "within a

reasonable degree of engineering certainty," were a result of the truck's impact.

These included: "damage to the bollard," "damage to the cracking of the

sidewalks in the corner," "the crack in the southwest corner," "the cracking in

the . . . brick[ ]face in the southwest corner down near the sidewalk level," "the

roof damage in the corner," and "the rotation of th[e] trim by the front." He

observed "other damage," which he "did not believe was caused by the truck"

such as "some damage to the curb under the window," "some cracking he had

observed up near the top of the column connection to the boxed out beam area,"

and some "caulking cracks." Brackmann's report was admitted into evidence

without objection.

A-2784-24 3 Plaintiff's second expert, Chuck Anania, a licensed home improvement

contractor, testified he "c[a]me up with a reasonable estimation of replacement

costs or repair costs" after visiting plaintiff's property. He opined "the entire

roof ha[d] to be replaced because you cannot find matching materials to the

current roof system," and there were "two sections of the façade . . . that were

damaged." He explained "two of th[e] sides" of the "four-sided" "mansard roof"

were "impacted." He also listed the damaged "bollard," "concrete work in front

of the building," "roofing work and structural work behind the actual façade,"

the "brick veneer that goes around the front corner of the building," and a "corner

pipe column adjacent to the truck impact area." Anania explained "the

manpower will be at least . . . [twenty] to [twenty-five] man days' worth of

work" to complete the repairs. He then opined it would cost $112,000 "to fix

the repairs that were caused by the damage from the truck," affirming that

estimate was "within a reasonable degree of construction certainty." While he

disagreed with some of Brackmann's determinations, he indicated he based his

calculation on "Brackmann's report that w[as] just the damage caused by the

truck." Anania's report was admitted into evidence without objection.

Anania conceded the roof "was toward the end of its useful life." He

further indicated he did "not agree with [the engineer's] determination . . . the

A-2784-24 4 interior damage" was mostly unrelated to the collision. He clarified his estimate

was based on replacing "the four façades of the roof," "any structural issues

behind the roof," "the bollard and the front concrete work," and "investigating"

"the interior . . . to remove that ceiling which . . . has lead paint and possibly

asbestos." He further articulated the roof needed to be replaced "at some point

in the future" but could not "give an exact date."

After the conclusion of Anania's testimony, the court expressed concern

that neither of plaintiff's experts provided an itemization of the repair costs. The

court also noted plaintiff's experts appeared to "have some disagreement"

regarding which damage was caused by the impact. Indicating plaintiff's "one

figure" of $112,000 would require the court to "speculate as to how much is

concrete, how much is the façade, [and] how much is the bollard," the court

advised it would "be very difficult to sift through this and make a determination

as to what, if any, award [plaintiff] [wa]s entitled to."

Defendants declined to present testimony or evidence. The court

emphasized it would only consider items admitted into evidence during the trial

and expressly indicated it would not consider "defense items . . . filed on

eCourts" as they were "not in evidence."

A-2784-24 5 On April 29, 2025, the court issued its written findings of fact and

conclusions of law and entered judgment by order dated May 7, 2025, awarding

$3,650 to plaintiff. The court stated, "Plaintiff's expert report opine[d] that the

cost to repair the damage, as well as remediate possible encapsulated asbestos

in the ceiling and lead-based paint, would cost $112,000." The court

acknowledged the experts disputed the specific damage resulting from the

collision and that existing prior to the collision attributable to the roof's age.

The court determined "[t]he only damages that were attributable to the

truck['s] impact within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty were to a

section of the mansard roof, the bollard and masonry in the vicinity of the

bollard." The court further found plaintiff did not provide any itemization of

damages, thus characterizing plaintiff's request for $112,000 as a "severe

overreach."

The court found "only a small section of the mansard roof overhang was

damaged," and an award of $112,000 "would constitute a great injustice."

However, the court also determined "award[ing] no damages to plaintiff as a

result of the truck impact would similarly constitute a great injustice."

The court then indicated its methodology in calculating damages. It

advised it recognized "only two remediation estimates . . . in the record, that is,

A-2784-24 6 plaintiff's $112,000 estimate which the court f[ound] to be completely

unrealistic and the $3,650 estimate . . . which was included with defendant[s']

Uniform Arbitration Statement of Facts." The court then stated, "[C]andor

require[d] the court to admit that a higher damage amount [wa]s probably

warranted."

The court described "itself in a situation akin to professional baseball

salary arbitration." Without further reasoning, the court concluded: "The record

contains only the $112,000 and $3,650 estimates, compelling the court to choose

to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $3,650." Accordingly,

the court entered judgment in the lower amount.

Plaintiff appeals, arguing the trial court improperly relied upon evidence

not presented or admitted at trial mandating reversal and entry of judgment in

the amount of $112,000, the only amount of damages presented at trial.

II.

"Our review of a judgment following a bench trial is limited."

Accounteks.Net, Inc. v. CKR Law, LLP, 475 N.J. Super. 493, 503 (App. Div.

2023) (citing Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011)).

When we review a trial court's findings in a non-jury trial, we "ponder[]

whether . . . there is substantial evidence in support of the trial judge's findings

A-2784-24 7 and conclusions." Sipko v. Koger, Inc., 214 N.J. 364, 376 (2013) (omission in

original) (quoting Seidman, 205 N.J. at 169). "[W]e do not disturb the factual

findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are convinced that

they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent,

relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice[.]"

Seidman, 205 N.J. at 169 (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Trust

Created by Agreement Dated Dec. 20, 1961, ex rel. Johnson, 194 N.J. 276, 284

(2008)). We give deference to a trial court's factual findings "when the evidence

is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility." Sipko, 214 N.J. at

376 (quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998)). A trial "'court's

interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established

facts,' however, 'are not entitled to any special deference.'" Accounteks.Net,

Inc., 475 N.J. Super. at 503 (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of

Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

"Compensatory damages are designed to compensate a plaintiff for an

actual injury or loss." Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello, 97 N.J.

37, 48 (1984). To support an award of compensatory damages, the evidence

must provide "some reasonable degree of certainty," Paolicelli v.

Wojciechowski, 132 N.J. Super. 274, 278-79 (App. Div. 1975), "as opposed to

A-2784-24 8 speculati[on,]" Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589, 603 (App. Div. 2014)

(quoting Grunwald v. Bronkesh, 131 N.J. 483, 495 (1993)). Thus, a plaintiff

must "prove damages with such certainty as the nature of the case may permit,

laying a foundation which will enable the trier of the facts to make a fair and

reasonable estimate." Totaro, Duffy, Cannova & Co. v. Lane, Middleton & Co.,

191 N.J. 1, 14 (2007) (quoting Lane v. Oil Delivery, Inc., 216 N.J. Super. 413,

420 (App. Div. 1987)). However, "the exact amount of the loss need not be

certain." Ibid. (quoting Donovan v. Bachstadt, 91 N.J. 434, 445 (1982)).

Indeed, "[w]here . . . it is certain that damage has resulted, mere

uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery." Paolicelli, 132 N.J.

Super. at 278. "If it is impossible to distinguish between the damage arising

from the actionable injury and that caused by another or natural conditions, the

court should attempt to make the best estimate possible under the circumstances

as a basis for the damages to be allowed." Id. at 279.

What is certain is a trial court may not support its damage award with

information or evidence not otherwise tethered to credible evidence in the trial

record. Here, neither plaintiff nor defendants presented testimony or evidence

of a damage or repair estimate contrary to plaintiff's. Indeed, defendant elected

not to present testimony or evidence at trial, despite the court's emphasizing it

A-2784-24 9 would not consider "defense items . . . filed on eCourts," as they were "not in

evidence." Nonetheless, the court improperly relied on a damage estimate from

defendant not referenced, presented, explored, or admitted at trial to arrive at its

award. This alone warrants vacating the judgment.

Compounding its error, the court erroneously determined it faced "a

situation akin to professional baseball salary arbitration" and was thus forced to

choose between the $3,650 figure not presented at trial and plaintiff's requested

amount based on its experts' testimony and estimates. This methodology, not

grounded in law, constituted error as a matter of law, particularly as the court

expressly found plaintiff's building was damaged by the truck's impact and "a

higher damage amount [wa]s probably warranted." Further, we note plaintiff's

experts both testified damage was caused by the truck, and Anania estimated

$112,000 as the cost of repairing "damages from the truck."

We recognize the court's frustration with plaintiff's failure to present a

breakdown and itemization of the total damages requested by plaintiff.

However, the "reasonable solution" did not include considering the $3,650

estimate which was not part of the trial record or reducing the damage

calculation to a binary choice between the $3,650 not presented or plaintiff's

requested amount. This was not the appropriate formula or evidence to assess

A-2784-24 10 "the best estimate possible under the circumstances." See Paolicelli, 132 N.J.

Super. at 279.

Although not suggesting the proper result, we vacate the damage award

and remand for further consideration of the appropriate damage calculation

without reference to reports not properly introduced into evidence within the

confines of the trial record.

Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

A-2784-24 11