In his counterclaim, defendant alleged: "During Plaintiff's performance of the contract alleged in the complaint, plaintiff damaged defendant's property and failed to make repairs."ĭespite any reference in defendant's answer or counterclaim to the CFA, N.J.S.A.
Joe lentini itrash pro#
Following entry and vacation of a default judgment, defendant filed a pro se answer and counterclaim, asserting as defenses in his answer that plaintiff had breached its contract by failing to conform to the architect's plan, and that defendant's "failure to perform" under the contract was excused by plaintiff's actions. Suit in this matter was instituted by plaintiff, a restoration company that does emergency service work for properties that are damaged by fire, water or other conditions, seeking payment by defendant of $13,884.60, constituting the balance of amounts allegedly owed for plaintiff's demolition and construction services.
![joe lentini itrash joe lentini itrash](https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screenshot-2017-06-29-12.19.34.png)
![joe lentini itrash joe lentini itrash](https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2017/CKS/2017_CKS_14437_0037_000(joe_bradley_alien_in_a_garbage_dump).jpg)
Joe lentini itrash trial#
On appeal, defendant makes a myriad of arguments that we distill into the following: (1) whether the trial judge erred in finding that the original signed contract was valid (2) whether the trial judge erred by not raising the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) sua sponte to invalidate the signed contract (3) whether the trial judge erred in awarding plaintiff compensation on the theory of quantum meruit, despite a violation of regulations adopted pursuant to the CFA (4) whether the judge erred in calculating damages (5) whether the judge erred in establishing the amount of the attorney fee award and (6) whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion to vacate the judgment based upon plaintiff's alleged perjury and defendant's discovery of "new" evidence. Warner, appeals from a verdict entered against him and in favor of plaintiff, Purofirst of Southwest Jersey, in the amount of $8,471.32, following a bench trial in the Law Division, Special Civil Part. Lentini, on the brief).ĭefendant, Joseph R. The D'Elia Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Teresa M.
![joe lentini itrash joe lentini itrash](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51fWiu5QrrL._SL500_AA280_.jpg)
Law Division-Special Civil Part, Burlington County, DC-628-06. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,