J.A.S. GRANITE & TILE, L.L.C. VS. GRAND STONE & TILE, INC. (C-54-11, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2984-15T4

J.A.S. Granite & Tile, LLC (plaintiff) agreed to bid at a receiver auction for building materials and then sell them to Grand Stone & Tile, Inc. (Grand Stone); Grand Stone provided an upfront $375,000 escrow payment and a promissory note secured by a purchase-money security agreement.
Plaintiff bought the auction rights from the winning bidder (Perez) and sold the materials to Grand Stone; Grand Stone defaulted and plaintiff obtained a judgment against Grand Stone and individual guarantors.
Plaintiff alleged Innovative Tile & Stone, Inc. and its owners (Beltra Sr. and Beltra Jr.) took possession of inventory (notably ceramic tile) covered by plaintiff’s security interest and sold it, asserting conversion and tortious-interference claims.
Defendants claim Beltra Jr. paid the $375,000 to secure the ceramic-tile portion for Innovative, believed he owned that tile, and therefore lawfully sold it; defendants deny knowledge of plaintiff’s security interest or participation in the Grand Stone agreement.
The parties submitted sharply conflicting evidence about who paid what, who owned the contested tile, and each party’s intent; the trial court denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion because credibility and intent were central and disputed.
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding summary judgment inappropriate where material factual disputes hinge on credibility and state of mind.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment should be granted on conversion and tortious-interference claims	J.A.S.: factual record shows Innovative wrongfully took and sold tile subject to plaintiff's security interest	Innovative: Beltra Jr. bought the tile (via his $375,000 payment) and legitimately owned/controlled it	Denied — genuine disputes of material fact (ownership, intent, state of mind) preclude summary judgment
Whether credibility determinations can be resolved on summary judgment	J.A.S.: documentary and testimonial evidence support its claims and raise triable issues	Innovative: lack of contrary documentation undermines plaintiff; defendants insist facts are undisputed	Denied — credibility cannot be decided on summary judgment; issues must go to factfinder
Whether defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law	Innovative: absent proof of conversion, summary judgment should be granted	J.A.S.: evidence supports conversion and interference claims warranting trial	Denied — moving party’s right to judgment not so clear as to leave no room for controversy
Whether appellate review should disturb trial court’s denial	Innovative: trial court erred in refusing summary judgment	J.A.S.: trial court correctly applied summary-judgment standards	Affirmed — appellate court finds no basis to disturb trial court’s reasoned denial

Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (discusses viewing evidence in light most favorable to non-moving party)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (standard for summary-judgment review and credibility considerations)
Bhagat v. Bharat A. Bhagat & Cranbury Hotels, LLC, 217 N.J. 22 (summary-judgment standard — identify genuine issues of material fact)
Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99 (evidence must be viewed in favor of non-moving party)
Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (rational factfinder standard for resolving disputed facts)
Suarez v. E. Int'l Coll., 428 N.J. Super. 10 (trial court may not weigh credibility on summary judgment)
DeWees v. RCN Corp., 380 N.J. Super. 511 (judge should not assess credibility or truth on summary judgment)
Mandel v. UBS/PaineWebber, Inc., 373 N.J. Super. 55 (court should not determine preponderance on motion)
Petersen v. Twp. of Raritan, 418 N.J. Super. 125 (summary judgment inappropriate where credibility governs outcome)