NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0547-24
MICHAEL PAVLOV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN E. HERMANN FUNERAL SERVICE, JOHN E. HERMANN, and SILVANA DIMITROVA,
Defendants,
and
GERARD HANLON, ESQ. and HANLON, DUNN, ROBERTSON & SCHWARTZ, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents. ______________________________
Submitted October 2, 2025 – Decided December 10, 2025
Before Judges Mawla and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-1859-21. Lanza Law Firm, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Kenneth W. Thomas, of counsel and on the brief).
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, attorneys for respondents (Daniel A. Malet, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Michael Pavlov appeals from the July 12, 2024 order granting
summary judgment in favor of defendants Gerard Hanlon and Hanlon, Dunn,
Robertson & Schwartz, LLC (collectively, the Hanlon defendants), and
dismissing his second amended complaint. He also appeals from the October
16, 2024 order entering final judgment of $35,000 against defendant Silvana
Dimitrova. Having considered the parties' arguments pursuant to the record and
applicable legal principles, we affirm.
I.
Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-moving party,
we recite the underlying facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal.
Cristello v. St. Theresa Sch., 255 N.J. 200, 218 (2023). The record reveals the
Pavlov family members were estranged. In June 2019, Michael's father, Boris
Pavlov,1 died intestate in his apartment in Springfield. According to the police
1 We refer to plaintiff and his family members by their first names because of the shared surname. No disrespect is intended. A-0547-24 2 report, Boris died in the presence of a registered nurse and his long-term
girlfriend, Dimitrova, with whom he had resided for twenty years. In the five
months preceding his death, Boris received hospice care. He is survived by his
sons, Michael and Alex, and a grandson.
During Michael's deposition, he testified he did not speak with Boris about
his health. Michael acknowledged he was unaware of Boris's wishes, stating
they "didn't really talk about the whole death thing." He was also unaware that
Boris had been in hospice care, as no one had informed him. Michael last visited
Boris, along with his son, in August 2018. He continued to speak with Boris a
couple of times a week until either Thanksgiving or Christmas 2018. After that,
he called Boris, but his call was not answered.
Michael acknowledged a relationship existed between Boris and
Dimitrova since at least 2010 or 2012. He disputed they were in a relationship
for twenty years and asserted Hanlon, as his father's friend for thirty years and
former attorney, would have been aware of this.
After Boris passed away, Dimitrova contacted Hanlon. At Dimitrova's
request, the Hanlon defendants prepared an affidavit on firm letterhead,
referencing "In the Matter of Boris Pavlov," despite the fact no probate matter
A-0547-24 3 had been initiated. 2 In the affidavit, Dimitrova declared Boris was her partner
for twenty years, and they resided together in the Springfield apartment. She
also stated Boris had two adult children, who could not be located; he had not
seen or heard from them for two years; he had no brothers and sisters, and both
parents were deceased; and he expressed to Dimitrova he wished to be cremated.
The affidavit was signed by Dimitrova and notarized by Hanlon.
According to John Hermann, director of Hermann Funeral Service
(collectively, Hermann defendants), Dimitrova contacted Legacy Funeral
Service, an online funeral service in Colorado. Legacy contacted the Hermann
defendants to transport Boris from the apartment to Hermann Funeral home.
During his deposition, Hermann testified his funeral service prepared the death
certificate and cremation authorization for Boris. The authorization provided in
relevant part:
I (We), the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the closest living next of kin of the decedent and that . . . I otherwise serve (served) in the capacity of DOMESTIC PARTNER of the decedent, that I have charge of the remains of the decedent, and as such possess full legal authority and power, according to the laws of the [S]tate of NJ to execute the authorization form and to arrange for the cremation and disposition of the cremated remains of the decedent. In addition, I am
2 In his merits brief, Michael refers to Dimitrova's affidavit as a letter due to its presentation on firm letterhead. A-0547-24 4 aware of no objection to the cremation by any spouse, child, parent or sibling. Initials: SD ***** By executing this Cremation Authorization Form the undersigned warrants that all statements and representations are true and correct.
The authorization was signed by Dimitrova as Boris's "domestic partner" in the
presence of the employees of the Hermann defendants. Hermann testified he
received the notarized letter on Hanlon letterhead stating Dimitrova was Boris's
domestic partner. He also testified he does not request verification of the
relationship between the deceased and the person representing they have the
authority to authorize cremation. Therefore, he accepted Dimitrova's
representations as true without further inquiry. Boris was subsequently
cremated.
According to Michael, he learned of Boris's death from a co-worker
sometime in August or September 2019. Also, he did not receive Boris's ashes.
Michael was unable to locate Boris's remains or his possessions, as the
apartment had already been cleared out by Dimitrova, whose whereabouts were
unknown.
Upon learning of his father's death, Michael contacted the Hanlon
defendants, claiming Hanlon knew where he lived. Hanlon told Michael the
firm attempted to find him for months, but he could not be located.
A-0547-24 5 Michael filed both a complaint and an amended complaint against the
Hermann defendants and Dimitrova, asserting claims of intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of rights
under the New Jersey Constitution, replevin, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
negligence.3 He filed a second amended complaint, adding the Hanlon
defendants as parties and asserting claims of negligence, professional
negligence, and deprivation of constitutional rights against them.
Following the close of discovery, the Hanlon defendants moved for
summary judgment. In opposing the motion, Michael relied on the affidavit of
merit prepared by his expert, Franklin Whittlesey, Esq. in connection with his
legal malpractice claim. Whittlesey acknowledged the Hanlon defendants did
not represent Michael; however, he opined Michael was owed a limited duty as
a specific non-client. Also, Whittlesey reviewed Michael's second amended
complaint, Boris's death certificate, Dimitrova's affidavit, Michael's responses
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-0547-24
MICHAEL PAVLOV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN E. HERMANN FUNERAL SERVICE, JOHN E. HERMANN, and SILVANA DIMITROVA,
Defendants,
and
GERARD HANLON, ESQ. and HANLON, DUNN, ROBERTSON & SCHWARTZ, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents. ______________________________
Submitted October 2, 2025 – Decided December 10, 2025
Before Judges Mawla and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-1859-21. Lanza Law Firm, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Kenneth W. Thomas, of counsel and on the brief).
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, attorneys for respondents (Daniel A. Malet, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Michael Pavlov appeals from the July 12, 2024 order granting
summary judgment in favor of defendants Gerard Hanlon and Hanlon, Dunn,
Robertson & Schwartz, LLC (collectively, the Hanlon defendants), and
dismissing his second amended complaint. He also appeals from the October
16, 2024 order entering final judgment of $35,000 against defendant Silvana
Dimitrova. Having considered the parties' arguments pursuant to the record and
applicable legal principles, we affirm.
I.
Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-moving party,
we recite the underlying facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal.
Cristello v. St. Theresa Sch., 255 N.J. 200, 218 (2023). The record reveals the
Pavlov family members were estranged. In June 2019, Michael's father, Boris
Pavlov,1 died intestate in his apartment in Springfield. According to the police
1 We refer to plaintiff and his family members by their first names because of the shared surname. No disrespect is intended. A-0547-24 2 report, Boris died in the presence of a registered nurse and his long-term
girlfriend, Dimitrova, with whom he had resided for twenty years. In the five
months preceding his death, Boris received hospice care. He is survived by his
sons, Michael and Alex, and a grandson.
During Michael's deposition, he testified he did not speak with Boris about
his health. Michael acknowledged he was unaware of Boris's wishes, stating
they "didn't really talk about the whole death thing." He was also unaware that
Boris had been in hospice care, as no one had informed him. Michael last visited
Boris, along with his son, in August 2018. He continued to speak with Boris a
couple of times a week until either Thanksgiving or Christmas 2018. After that,
he called Boris, but his call was not answered.
Michael acknowledged a relationship existed between Boris and
Dimitrova since at least 2010 or 2012. He disputed they were in a relationship
for twenty years and asserted Hanlon, as his father's friend for thirty years and
former attorney, would have been aware of this.
After Boris passed away, Dimitrova contacted Hanlon. At Dimitrova's
request, the Hanlon defendants prepared an affidavit on firm letterhead,
referencing "In the Matter of Boris Pavlov," despite the fact no probate matter
A-0547-24 3 had been initiated. 2 In the affidavit, Dimitrova declared Boris was her partner
for twenty years, and they resided together in the Springfield apartment. She
also stated Boris had two adult children, who could not be located; he had not
seen or heard from them for two years; he had no brothers and sisters, and both
parents were deceased; and he expressed to Dimitrova he wished to be cremated.
The affidavit was signed by Dimitrova and notarized by Hanlon.
According to John Hermann, director of Hermann Funeral Service
(collectively, Hermann defendants), Dimitrova contacted Legacy Funeral
Service, an online funeral service in Colorado. Legacy contacted the Hermann
defendants to transport Boris from the apartment to Hermann Funeral home.
During his deposition, Hermann testified his funeral service prepared the death
certificate and cremation authorization for Boris. The authorization provided in
relevant part:
I (We), the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the closest living next of kin of the decedent and that . . . I otherwise serve (served) in the capacity of DOMESTIC PARTNER of the decedent, that I have charge of the remains of the decedent, and as such possess full legal authority and power, according to the laws of the [S]tate of NJ to execute the authorization form and to arrange for the cremation and disposition of the cremated remains of the decedent. In addition, I am
2 In his merits brief, Michael refers to Dimitrova's affidavit as a letter due to its presentation on firm letterhead. A-0547-24 4 aware of no objection to the cremation by any spouse, child, parent or sibling. Initials: SD ***** By executing this Cremation Authorization Form the undersigned warrants that all statements and representations are true and correct.
The authorization was signed by Dimitrova as Boris's "domestic partner" in the
presence of the employees of the Hermann defendants. Hermann testified he
received the notarized letter on Hanlon letterhead stating Dimitrova was Boris's
domestic partner. He also testified he does not request verification of the
relationship between the deceased and the person representing they have the
authority to authorize cremation. Therefore, he accepted Dimitrova's
representations as true without further inquiry. Boris was subsequently
cremated.
According to Michael, he learned of Boris's death from a co-worker
sometime in August or September 2019. Also, he did not receive Boris's ashes.
Michael was unable to locate Boris's remains or his possessions, as the
apartment had already been cleared out by Dimitrova, whose whereabouts were
unknown.
Upon learning of his father's death, Michael contacted the Hanlon
defendants, claiming Hanlon knew where he lived. Hanlon told Michael the
firm attempted to find him for months, but he could not be located.
A-0547-24 5 Michael filed both a complaint and an amended complaint against the
Hermann defendants and Dimitrova, asserting claims of intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of rights
under the New Jersey Constitution, replevin, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
negligence.3 He filed a second amended complaint, adding the Hanlon
defendants as parties and asserting claims of negligence, professional
negligence, and deprivation of constitutional rights against them.
Following the close of discovery, the Hanlon defendants moved for
summary judgment. In opposing the motion, Michael relied on the affidavit of
merit prepared by his expert, Franklin Whittlesey, Esq. in connection with his
legal malpractice claim. Whittlesey acknowledged the Hanlon defendants did
not represent Michael; however, he opined Michael was owed a limited duty as
a specific non-client. Also, Whittlesey reviewed Michael's second amended
complaint, Boris's death certificate, Dimitrova's affidavit, Michael's responses
to discovery, and the deposition testimony of Michael and Hermann and the
applicable law. He concluded Michael's second amended complaint was based
upon a "legitimate legal argument" and facts, which would support his claim.
3 Default judgment as to liability was entered against Dimitrova on August 9, 2021. A stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was entered on July 13, 2021, reflecting the settlement of Michael's claims against the Hermann defendants. A-0547-24 6 Michael also relied on a May 5, 2022 certification from the New Jersey
Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics and Registry. The certification
stated "no records were found pertaining to a domestic partnership between . . .
Boris Pavlov[] and Silvann 4 Dimitrova" from January 1, 2010, through April 30,
2022.
In the July 12, 2024 order, accompanied by a statement of reasons, the
trial court granted the Hanlon defendants' motion for summary judgment,
finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court concluded Michael failed
to establish claims of negligence and professional negligence, stating the Hanlon
defendants did not owe a duty of care to Michael. Citing Innes v. Marzano-
Lesnevich, 435 N.J. Super. 198, 213 (App. Div. 2014), the court explained
Michael's claim was based solely on the allegation that Hanlon issued a letter
containing knowingly false information, for which there was no evidence.
Finally, the court rejected Michael's contention the affidavit was the proximate
cause of Boris's cremation, as there was no evidence in the record the Hanlon
defendants knew the Dimitrova certification contained false information, and
the Hermann defendants did not rely on the certification.
4 We note the certification improperly spells Dimitrova's first name, which will be addressed later. A-0547-24 7 A proof hearing was held. Following Michael's testimony, the court
entered an order on October 16, 2024, against Dimitrova for $35,000.
On appeal, Michael contends the court erred in granting summary
judgment because there was sufficient evidence in the record for the matter to
proceed to a jury. He argues he established the elements of ordinary negligence
and professional negligence by the Hanlon defendants. We are not persuaded
by these arguments.
II.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the trial court. Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73, 78 (2022). That
standard requires us to "determine whether 'the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.' " Branch
v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).
"Summary judgment should be granted . . . [']against a party who fails to make
a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'"
Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472 (2020) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). We do not defer to the trial court's legal
A-0547-24 8 analysis or statutory interpretation. RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
234 N.J. 459, 472 (2018); Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 218 N.J. 202, 209 (2014).
Michael initially contends the trial court erred because he established
ordinary negligence. It is well-settled, to establish a claim for negligence, a
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing four elements: "(1) a duty of care, (2)
a breach of that duty, (3) actual and proximate causation, and (4) damages."
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 406 (2014) (quoting Jersey
Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Util. Co., 212 N.J. 576, 594 (2013)). "A
'plaintiff bears the burden of establishing those elements "by some competent
proof."'" Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 51 (2015) (quoting Davis, 219 N.J.
at 406).
Michael likewise contends the court erred in determining he had not
established a professional negligence claim. Legal malpractice claims are
"grounded in the tort of negligence." Gilbert v. Stewart, 247 N.J. 421, 442
(2021) (quoting Nieves v. Off. of the Pub. Def., 241 N.J. 567, 579 (2020)).
Accordingly, a plaintiff is likewise required to establish the four elements of a
legal malpractice claim: "(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship
creating a duty of care by the defendant attorney, (2) the breach of that duty by
the defendant, and (3) proximate causation of the [(4)] damages claimed." Id.
at 442-43 (quoting Nieves, 241 N.J. at 582). A plaintiff has the burden to
A-0547-24 9 establish these elements "by some competent proof." Id. at 443 (quoting
Townsend, 221 N.J. at 51 (quoting Davis, 219 N.J. at 406)).
Michael has not presented competent evidence to support his claim the
Hanlon defendants were liable for breaching a duty owed to a non-client,
whether under a theory of ordinary negligence or professional negligence.
Generally, our Supreme Court has expressed "reluctance to permit non-clients
to sue attorneys." Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 460 (2013). "[I]n
limited circumstances, 'attorneys may owe a duty of care to non-clients when
the attorneys know, or should know, that non-clients will rely on the attorneys'
representations and the non-clients are not too remote from the attorneys to be
entitled to protection.'" Innes, 435 N.J. Super. at 213 (quoting Petrillo v.
Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472, 483-84 (1995)). Nevertheless, the Court has held
"the grounds on which any plaintiff may pursue a malpractice claim against an
attorney with whom there was no attorney-client relationship [remain]
exceedingly narrow." Green, 215 N.J. at 458.
Our courts have also recognized that "[p]rivity between an attorney and a
non-client is not necessary for a duty to attach 'where the attorney had reason to
foresee the specific harm which occurred.'" Innes, 435 N.J. Super at 213
(alteration in original) (quoting Est. of Albanese v. Lolio, 393 N.J. Super. 355,
368-69 (App. Div. 2007)). While "[t]he determination of the existence of a duty
A-0547-24 10 is a question of law for the court," Petrillo, 139 N.J. at 479, "[t]he primary
question . . . is one of fairness." Est. of Albanese, 393 N.J. Super. at 369.
Michael acknowledges he was not an active client of the Hanlon
defendants. Instead, he contends the Hanlon defendants owed him a duty based
on their prior attorney-client relationship when he was a minor and in a 2018
family matter. Michael further argues the Hanlon defendants breached this duty
by failing to contact him upon his father's death, which affected his ability to
intervene in the cremation arrangements and ultimately prevented him from
obtaining some or all his father's property. He contends the false and misleading
information contained within Dimitrova's affidavit was relied upon by third
parties to his detriment.
The record fails to support Michael's arguments. Hanlon told Michael that
repeated attempts to locate him over months were unsuccessful. Additionally,
the record shows Michael had minimal contact with Boris and no contact with
Dimitrova. Michael did not discuss Boris's wishes with him and was therefore
unaware of Boris's preferences regarding cremation arrangements or the
distribution of his property. The Hanlon defendants could not reasonably have
foreseen harm to Michael, as Hanlon simply notarized the affidavit. Thus, it
would be unfair to extend a duty to the Hanlon defendants when neither Michael
nor Dimitrova were clients of the firm.
A-0547-24 11 We acknowledge the Vital Statistics and Registry certification states no
domestic partnership was registered; however, we note Dimitrova's first name
was misspelled on the certification. Additionally, Michael's deposition
testimony, primarily based on "unsubstantiated inferences and feelings," is
insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Oakley v. Wianecki, 345
N.J. Super. 194, 201 (App. Div. 2001). "Bald assertions [by the non-moving
party] are not capable of either supporting or defeating summary judgment."
Ridge at Back Brook, LLC v. Klenert, 437 N.J. Super. 90, 97-98 (App. Div.
2014).
We also add, to prove professional negligence, a plaintiff must present
expert testimony regarding the standard of care and any deviation from it by the
Hanlon defendants. See Buchanan v. Leonard, 428 N.J. Super. 277, 288-89
(App. Div. 2012) ("As 'the duties a lawyer owes to his client are not known by
the average juror,' expert testimony must necessarily set forth that duty and
explain the breach." (quoting Carbis Sales, Inc. v. Eisenberg, 397 N.J. Super.
64, 78 (App. Div. 2007))). Michael had no expert report or expert deposition
establishing an accepted standard of care.
Simply put, there is no objective, competent evidence in the record to
support Michael's arguments that he established ordinary or professional
negligence. Based on our review of the motion record, we conclude summary
A-0547-24 12 judgment was properly granted dismissing Michael's second amended
complaint.
Finally, Michael did not brief an argument concerning the October 16,
2024 final judgment of $35,000 entered against Dimitrova. "An issue not
briefed on appeal is deemed waived." Woodlands Cmty. Ass'n v. Mitchell, 450
N.J. Super. 310, 319 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J.
Super. 648, 657 (App. Div. 2011)).
To the extent we have not addressed Michael's remaining arguments, we
conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0547-24 13