Nj Propertylink LLC v. Adt Corporation
A-3586-23
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (NJ Propertylink, Varcadipane, and Bartlow) contracted with ADT to install a security system; ADT subcontracted installation to Intel Video and R&J Home Services.
- Plaintiffs alleged faulty installation and property damage after completion.
- Plaintiffs sued ADT; ADT moved to compel arbitration per the contract's arbitration clause.
- The parties entered into a consent order to arbitrate and to stay the court case, with mechanisms to extend the stay if necessary.
- Plaintiffs later objected to the contractual arbitration process, sought to vacate the consent order, and argued the underlying arbitration provision was unenforceable.
- The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate, finding insufficient grounds, and plaintiffs appealed the denial without seeking leave for an interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order denying motion to vacate appealable? | The denial is appealable as of right under rules for arbitration orders. | It is interlocutory and not appealable as of right. | The order is not appealable as of right; appeal dismissed. |
| Did the consent order for arbitration expire? | Yes; the 120-day period lapsed without extension. | No; order stayed proceedings pending arbitration event. | Consent order did not expire; intent was to arbitrate. |
| Are the arbitration provisions unenforceable? | Arbitration terms are unfair, costly, unenforceable, and do not bind individuals. | Arbitration terms are clear, binding, and enforceable. | Not reached; dismissed on procedural grounds. |
| Was relief under Rule 4:50-1 justified? | Relief warranted due to changed circumstances/unfairness. | Plaintiffs gave only conclusory arguments; no grounds. | Relief not warranted; motion properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Janicky v. Point Bay Fuel, Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 545 (N.J. App. Div. 2007) (defines finality of judgments for purposes of appeal)
- S.N. Golden Ests., Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 317 N.J. Super. 82 (N.J. App. Div. 1998) (final order must dispose of all claims)
- Grow Co. v. Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. 443 (N.J. App. Div. 2008) (explains distinction between final and interlocutory orders)
- Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364 (N.J. 2008) (exception to finality rule for certain arbitration orders)
- Antonucci v. Curvature Newco, Inc., 470 N.J. Super. 553 (N.J. App. Div. 2022) (requirement for courts to stay litigation pending arbitration)