Goldfarb v. Solimine
213 A.3d 200
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- Plaintiff agreed with defendant to manage portions of defendant’s and relatives’ assets for a salary (~$250,000–$275,000) plus a percentage of investment gains; in reliance plaintiff quit his prior job before receiving written confirmation.
- Defendant later reneged; plaintiff obtained substitute employment but earned less than the promised base for the first year and less than his prior average compensation for some time.
- Plaintiff sued solely on promissory estoppel, seeking reliance damages (difference between earnings he would have had and what he earned after mitigation).
- At trial the judge barred plaintiff’s damages expert and limited damages to the difference between a $250,000 base and plaintiff’s actual earnings for 17 months; the jury found liability and awarded $237,000 (less taxes).
- Plaintiff moved to recuse the trial judge after learning a defense firm associate (a former law clerk) texted the judge asking if she would take the case and the judge requested assignment; the judge denied recusal.
- The Appellate Division vacated the challenged rulings, affirmed liability, held recusal was required because the judge’s response to the ex parte assignment inquiry created an appearance of impropriety, and remanded for a new trial on damages before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge should have recused after ex parte assignment request | Recusal required because defense-originated ex parte contact and judge’s affirmative solicitation created appearance of impropriety | Contact was a permissible scheduling/availability inquiry; recusal not warranted | Recusal required; judge’s conduct created an appearance of partiality and she should have stepped aside |
| Admissibility of plaintiff’s damages expert and right to present reliance damages | Plaintiff entitled to present expert opinion on lost earnings and recover reliance damages (difference between promised earnings and actual mitigated earnings) | Court limited damages and excluded expert (trial rulings) | Appellate court vacated those rulings and held plaintiff was entitled to present reliance damages and the expert (deciding these issues de novo) |
| Whether Securities Law / FINRA rules or unclean-hands barred plaintiff’s claim | Plaintiff’s claim not barred; entitled to prove reliance damages | Defendant contended New Jersey Securities Law writing requirement, FINRA limits, and unclean hands barred relief | Appellate court rejected bars and decided plaintiff’s claims were not precluded by those doctrines |
| Appropriate remedy for judge’s failure to recuse | Plaintiff sought relief tied to the recusal error (retrial on affected matters) | Defendant opposed broad retrial, argued deference to trial rulings or limited review | Court preserved jury’s liability findings, vacated judge’s challenged discretionary rulings, exercised original jurisdiction to decide legal issues, and remanded for a new trial on damages before a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34 (discretionary review of recusal motions; standard of review)
- In re Reddin, 221 N.J. 221 (appearance-of-impropriety standard for judge conduct)
- DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502 (vacatur/remedy where judge’s conduct created appearance of impropriety)
- State v. Dalal, 221 N.J. 601 (judicial assignment/manipulation and impact on public confidence)
- Chandok v. Chandok, 406 N.J. Super. 595 (retrial ordered where related-party retention created appearance issues)
- In re Continental Airlines, 981 F.2d 1450 (appellate de novo review can sometimes cure recusal taint)
- In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (when remand required for reconsideration after recusal issues)
- Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (deference to trial judge on expert-admissibility rulings absent taint)
- Untermann v. Untermann, 19 N.J. 507 (unclean-hands doctrine)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (standard for de novo review of legal questions)
- State v. Yough, 49 N.J. 587 (original jurisdiction invoked where sound administration of justice requires appellate intervention)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (factors for vacating judgments for judge’s failure to recuse)