BRIDGETON COMMERCE CENTER VS. NJ DEALERS AUTOMALL, INC.(L-5292-05, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4539-15T1

Background

Plaintiffs (Bridgeton Commerce Center, Dennis Altman and others) sued defendants (N.J. Dealers Auto Mall and Louis Civello Jr.) alleging, among other claims, that Altman was promised a 50% ownership interest in NJDAM when it was incorporated in June 1998.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint in 2007 to add Count Six seeking dissolution or purchase of Altman’s alleged 50% share and recovery of profits as a co-owner.
The Appellate Division previously held Count Six was a standalone claim and remanded it for further proceedings after a related action was dismissed in error.
On remand, defendants moved for a Lopez hearing to resolve whether Count Six was time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations; they argued Altman knew by August 28, 1998 he was not a 50% owner.
At the Lopez hearing Altman testified he had no documentary proof of any promise and relied on a hearsay conversation; defendants introduced multiple corporate filings (all dated more than six years before suit) showing Civello as sole owner, including documents bearing Altman’s handwriting.
The trial judge found Altman not credible, concluded he knew he was not a 50% owner more than six years before suit, and dismissed Count Six as time-barred; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count Six is barred by the six-year statute of limitations	Altman contends he was entitled to pursue ownership/benefit claims despite timing; Count Six survived earlier proceedings	Altman knew (by Aug 1998) he was not a 50% owner, so the six-year limitations period expired before the Nov 2005 complaint	Dismissal affirmed: uncontradicted evidence and credibility findings show accrual >6 years before suit
Whether a Lopez hearing was appropriate on remand	Plaintiffs did not object to proceeding at hearing and argued merits should be resolved at trial	Defendants sought Lopez hearing to resolve timeliness based on documentary evidence and Altman’s testimony	Lopez hearing was appropriate; trial judge properly resolved factual issue and credibility at hearing
Whether Altman’s testimony created a factual dispute precluding dismissal	Altman argued belief in promised ownership based on a third-party conversation	Defendants introduced documentary filings (signed/handwritten by Altman) showing Civello as sole owner and Altman’s access to tax returns	Court found Altman not credible; documentary record uncontradicted—no genuine dispute to defeat dismissal
Whether appellate court should disturb trial judge’s factual findings	Plaintiffs urged reversal of credibility and timeliness findings	Defendants urged deference to trial judge who evaluated witness credibility and documentary evidence	Appellate court defers to trial judge’s factual findings supported by substantial, credible evidence and affirms dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for appellate review of trial court factual findings)
Notte v. Merchs. Mut. Ins. Co., 185 N.J. 490 (2006) (statute-of-limitations defense must be timely raised or is waived)
Greenfield v. Dusseault, 33 N.J. 78 (1960) (discussing deference to trial court findings)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) (deference to judge's credibility determinations influenced by seeing/hearing witnesses)
Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973) (procedural framework for hearings to resolve statute-of-limitations and related factual issues)