01-2-2299 Roman v. Bd. of Review, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) In this unemployment benefits dispute, claimant Lawrence Roman appealed the decision that he was disqualified from receiving benefits for eight weeks due to simple misconduct. Roman contended that the Board of Review misapplied the law, that he was denied due process because he was not given notice to participate in a re-hearing, and that the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Roman began his employment with Creative Print Group (CPG) on April 4, 2010. After being hired to work in sales, Roman subsequently became a production manager. However, when CPG lost a major client, he was re-assigned back to sales, changing his compensation from salary to commission-based. Thereafter, Roman had a closed door meeting with CPG owner Howard Friedman to discuss Roman’s compensation. The meeting concluded without resolution due to a heated argument. According to Friedman, Roman cursed and threatened to fight him, which caused Friedman to call police and terminate Roman. Conversely, Roman asserted that Friedman displayed combative behavior at the start of their meeting. The appellate panel affirmed the board’s credibility determinations and its application of Silver v. Board of Review, as well as its finding that Roman’s cursing and threats towards Freidman were intentional, and constituted misconduct resulting in an eight-week disqualification from receiving benefits. In addition, the panel rejected Roman’s contention that there were due process violations because he was not given notice to participate in a second Appeal Tribunal hearing. There was no indication that the final agency decision was based upon the hearing in which Roman not given notice.
09-2-2328 Lyon v. Kull Auto Sales Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (O’Connor, J.A.D.) (19 pp.) Plaintiff Douglas Lyon appealed from two orders. The first order dismissed with prejudice his complaint against defendant American Honda Finance Corporation. The second order dismissed without prejudice his complaint against defendants Kull Auto Sales and its employees, defendants Steve Maw and Dan Swadis. Plaintiff purchased a vehicle from Kull Auto Sales and financed it with American Honda Finance Corp. Plaintiff alleged the misrepresentations by Kull, amounted to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, causing him to suffer financial loss and emotional distress. Plaintiff further contended that, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 433.2(a) and N.J.S.A. 17:16C-38.2, as assignee of the RISC, American is responsible for any misrepresentations of Kull and its employees that violated the CFA. American responded that TILA immunizes it from liability and, because American did not make the subject misrepresentations, it cannot be liable to plaintiff under the CFA. There were no allegations that the consumer loan plaintiff acquired through Kull was the product of deceptive financing practices, or that the loan violated TILA. The complaint concerned the misrepresentations of Kull and its employees to plaintiff about the quality of the car plaintiff purchased. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that American became an assignee of the loan, assumed Kull’s position, and is liable for Kull’s alleged misconduct. The panel reversed the first order to the extent it dismissed of plaintiff’s complaint against American with prejudice. Because the trial court did not address American’s contentions that TILA precludes plaintiff’s cause of action against it, or American is not liable for the misconduct by Kull, Maw, and Swadis under the CFA, the panel declined to do so in the first instance. To the extent that the second order dismissed the complaint against the Kull defendants, it was reversed and will be stayed pending arbitration.
