01-2-9183 E.L. v. Dep’t of Human Serv., App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Appellant E.L. appealed a final agency action of the Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, denying her application for Emergency Assistance pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.1 to -6.10 on the ground that she caused her own homelessness. The panel affirmed. It found that appellant knew at least as early as July 1, 2014, that her landlord wanted her to leave the apartment as a consequence of what he perceived to be her breach of the lease by overcrowding and creating unsanitary conditions on the property, but there was no evidence that appellant undertook any steps to address those conditions or to discuss the problems with her landlord. Therefore, it could not find that appellant lacked a “realistic capacity to plan in advance” to avoid her “imminent homelessness.” Also, appellant had sufficient cash to pay her rent of $950 per month through Sept. 30, 2014, a fact that was inconsistent with the eligibility requirements of N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.1(c). Most importantly, appellant agreed to the entry of a consent order granting her landlord a judgment for eviction against her, despite the fact that she denied the factual predicate for the eviction complaint and marshaled evidence that supported her denial. Thus, it appeared that she had caused her own homelessness.
11-2-9162 En-Tech Corp. v. City of Newark, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Plaintiff En-Tech Corp. appealed a Law Division order dismissing its claims against defendant Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM). In 2006, the city of Newark was in the midst of a long-term multiphase project to repair and reline its 100-year-old brick sewers. The city agreed that CDM would serve as its engineer for Phase V of the project. CDM prepared the plans, specifications and bid package for the project. Phase V would require a contractor to clean the existing sewers and install cured-in-place pipe liners (CIPP liners). The city’s goal was to make the rehabilitated sewers last as long as possible, and it instructed CDM to prepare the project designs assuming that the current sewers were fully deteriorated. Plaintiff was the low bidder, and was awarded the contract. Over the course of the project, plaintiff requested extra compensation, claiming that the work it was required to perform went beyond the contract or was attributable to conditions on the job site that differed from the conditions described in the bid materials. The requests were denied. Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming tortious interference and negligence on the part of CDM and other claims against the city of Newark. Judge Taylor issued a written decision and order granting CDM’s motion for summary judgment. The court entered a consent order submitting the remaining claims against the city of Newark to binding arbitration and dismissed the remaining counts of the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, plaintiff contended that summary judgment was inappropriate. With respect to the tortious interference claim, plaintiff asserted for the first time in its reply brief that CDM exceeded the scope of its agency by interrupting En-Tech’s prelining work and directing additional repairs not required by the contract; failing to disclose conditions CDM knew about and falsely insisting they were En-Tech’s responsibility; and interfering with En-Tech’s means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures. Because plaintiff did not properly raise this issue in its initial brief, the appellate panel concluded that its argument was waived and affirmed.
