MICHAEL SUKENIK VS. MARINA DIZIK(DC-14769-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)DCPP VS. K.M. AND R.A.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.M.(FG-09-101-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-4053-15T3
N.J. Super. App. Div. UJun 7, 2017Background
- Sukenik and Dizik dated ~1.5 years; Sukenik frequently stayed at and moved into Dizik's home in Feb 2015.
- Sukenik paid $8,850.36 for materials and sprinkler repair, contributed labor he valued at $3,000, and paid $1,500/month toward the mortgage; documentary bills/credit card statements were admitted.
- No written or oral agreement, promise to pay, or expectation of reimbursement was shown at trial; Sukenik admitted Dizik never promised payment and that his claim arose after their breakup.
- Sukenik filed in Special Civil Part seeking $11,850.36 for expenses and labor; he was the only witness at trial.
- At the close of Sukenik’s case, Dizik moved for involuntary dismissal under R. 4:37-2(b); the trial judge granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can recover under unjust enrichment/quantum meruit/quasi-contract for home improvements | Sukenik argued he should be compensated for materials and labor under equitable doctrines | Dizik argued the improvements were unconditional gifts and no basis for equitable recovery | Court held no recovery: evidence showed unconditional gifts, no contract, no expectation of payment |
| Whether detrimental reliance (promissory estoppel) applies | Sukenik claimed detrimental reliance for work done | Dizik argued she made no promises to induce reliance | Court held no detrimental reliance: no promise or expectation shown |
| Whether a contract existed creating restitution liability | Sukenik relied on implied obligations for labor/materials | Dizik asserted no contractual relationship or agreement to pay | Court held no contract; plaintiff admitted no agreement existed |
| Whether involuntary dismissal was proper under R. 4:37-2(b) | Sukenik contended reasonable inferences could support judgment for him | Dizik contended evidence, even accepted, could not support plaintiff's essential elements | Court affirmed dismissal: no rational factfinder could find essential elements met |
Key Cases Cited
- ADS Assoc. v. Oritani Sav. Bank, 219 N.J. 496 (discussion of Rule 4:37-2(b) standard for involuntary dismissal)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (de novo review of legal questions)
- Jennings v. Cutler, 288 N.J. Super. 553 (gifts completed upon delivery; intent to give controls equitable claims)
- In re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192 (principles on gifts and equitable relief)
- Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20 (equitable limitations where transfers are gifts)
- Pitts v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 337 N.J. Super. 331 (standard for dismissal when essential element is absent)