BINA SHAH VS. MAGUIRE BURKE, INC. REAL ESTATE AGENCY(L-0837-13, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1856-15T2

Background

Shah was a licensed real estate salesperson employed by Maguire Burke under a written contract and sued for an unpaid additional commission allegedly owed from a sale of a banquet facility/liquor store closing in October 2008.
Default was entered against Maguire Burke for failure to answer; Shah moved for default judgment but the trial court denied it for insufficient proofs and listed documents/calculations required.
Shah filed a motion for reconsideration with a certification claiming she was due $74,308 (40% of defendant’s 5% commission on a $7,000,000 contract price) and later submitted additional certifications showing she had received payments. Defendant did not oppose.
The trial court found an addendum reduced the purchase price to $6.7 million and the broker commission to $200,000; actual closing was $6,550,000 and the broker was paid $200,000.
The court’s accounting concluded Shah received a total of $70,000 (40% of $175,000 after a $25,000 fee to P. Ryan Consulting and other adjustments). Shah argued the $25,000 payment to P. Ryan violated N.J.S.A. 45:15‑3 and that her additional $26,250 commission was untimely under N.J.S.A. 45:15‑3.1.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to an additional commission	Shah says she produced a buyer and is owed additional commission based on a $7.4M letter of intent and the original $7M contract math	Commission was reduced by an executed addendum; broker was paid $200,000 and accounting shows Shah received $70,000 total	Court denied default judgment/reconsideration; Shah failed to prove entitlement to additional commission because contract/addendum and closing show lower price and payments made
Validity/authentication of documents showing P. Ryan Consulting’s licensing	Shah asserts P. Ryan Consulting was not a licensed NJ broker, so the $25,000 payment violated statute	No opposing submissions; trial court required authenticated proof of licensing; offered printouts not authenticated	Court rejected Shah’s un-authenticated printouts under N.J.R.E. 901/902 and found she did not prove P. Ryan was unlicensed, so statutory violation not established
Applicability/timing under N.J.S.A. 45:15‑3.1 (timeliness of commission payment)	Shah contends the extra $26,250 was paid untimely under the statute	Payment timing disputed in certifications; defendant did pay the additional check	Court found timing argument lacked sufficient merit and declined discussion; no relief granted
Appropriateness of default judgment and standard on reconsideration	Shah sought default judgment and, after denial, sought reconsideration asserting proofs supported judgment	Trial court exercised discretion to require proofs and later amplified accounting; defendant remained nonresponsive	Court affirmed denial of default judgment and reconsideration — plaintiff failed to furnish sufficient proof of liability and amount; no abuse of discretion on reconsideration

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Johnson, 92 N.J. Super. 457 (App. Div. 1966) (plaintiff must furnish proof of liability for default judgment)
Slowinski v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 264 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 1993) (proof required for default judgment)
Chakravarti v. Pegasus Consulting Grp., Inc., 393 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 2007) (trial judge has discretion to determine necessary proofs)
Heimbach v. Mueller, 229 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 1988) (default proofs need only make prima facie case)
Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 2010) (denial of reconsideration reviewed for abuse of discretion)
W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div. 2008) (procedural limits on appeals of specific orders)
Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div. 2002) (consideration of related orders when substantive issues overlap)