BRIAN D. ASARNOW VS. CITY OF LONG BRANCH (L-4039-11, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4973-14T4

Background

Plaintiff Brian Asarnow owned property adjacent to land used for paving/contracting; disputes arose after defendants obtained a 2009 zoning permit to operate a paving business on the neighboring lot.
Asarnow challenged the permit and complained to municipal officials; the City issued a Notice of Violation in 2010 asserting the use exceeded the permit.
While an earlier prerogative writ action was pending and later affirmed on appeal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Asarnow filed a separate ten-count complaint (2011) against municipal and private defendants alleging nuisance, IIED, interference with prospective economic advantage, civil conspiracy, §1983, breach of fiduciary duty and contract.
Defaults entered against several private defendants were later vacated by the trial court; the municipal defendants moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the municipal defendants (Oct. 3, 2014). A jury trial against private defendants on nuisance and IIED claims resulted in verdict for defendants; plaintiff appealed raising (1) evidentiary rulings excluding zoning/other evidence, (2) summary judgment to the City, (3) vacatur of defaults, and (4) appraisal methodology/damages issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence about zoning violations, hacking, arson (trial)	Asarnow: excluded evidence was relevant to nuisance and liability; exclusion denied fair trial	Defendants: evidence unduly prejudicial/confusing; court should exclude under balancing	Court: no abuse of discretion in excluding this evidence; no manifest injustice; verdict stands
Summary judgment for City and officials	Asarnow: municipal defendants acted ultra vires; sought injunctive relief and reversal of summary judgment	City: relief barred by doctrines including entire controversy, Tort Claims Act, statute of limitations, failure to state prima facie claims	Court: affirmed summary judgment substantially for reasons in trial judge's oral opinion (exhaustion/ procedural and substantive barriers)
Vacatur of defaults for private defendants	Asarnow: trial court erred in vacating defaults, prejudicing plaintiff's ability to recover	Defendants: motions to vacate default should be liberally granted absent manifest injustice; relief appropriate	Court: affirmed vacatur; trial court did not pursue a manifestly unjust course in granting relief
Evidentiary standard and appellate review of trial rulings	Asarnow: appellate reversal warranted because exclusions and evidentiary rulings skewed damages/ liability	Defendants: trial court properly exercised discretion; appellant must show palpable abuse causing manifest injustice	Court: applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found no reversible error in evidentiary rulings

Key Cases Cited

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 410 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2009) (motions to vacate defaults should be viewed with great liberality)
Marder v. Realty Constr. Co., 84 N.J. Super. 313 (App. Div. 1964) (liberal approach to vacating defaults)
Mancini v. EDS ex rel. N.J. Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 132 N.J. 330 (1993) (resolve doubts in favor of party seeking relief from default)
Gittleman v. Cent. Jersey Bank & Trust Co., 103 N.J. Super. 175 (App. Div. 1967) (review of discretionary trial court action: whether judge pursued a manifestly unjust course)
Villanueva v. Zimmer, 431 N.J. Super. 301 (App. Div. 2013) (appellate standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J. Super. 27 (App. Div. 1999) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112 (1991) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial rulings)
Bitsko v. Main Pharmacy, Inc., 289 N.J. Super. 267 (App. Div. 1996) (evidentiary review principles)
Ratner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 241 N.J. Super. 197 (App. Div. 1990) (standards cited for evidentiary review)
Green v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 160 N.J. 480 (1999) (reversal only for palpable abuse of discretion causing manifest denial of justice)
State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (1982) (discusses when discretionary rulings warrant reversal)