Unpublished Opinions for the Week of April 10, 2017

46-2-2927 A.V. v. Ashrafi, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Defendant Richard Grodeck appealed the order of the trial court that denied his request for counsel fees in the New Jersey Civil Rights Act action brought by plaintiff. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that various defendants, including Grodeck, violated his civil rights. Grodeck represented himself during the proceeding, which resulted in dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint against all defendants. In his motion seeking dismissal, Grodeck requested counsel fees in the event of a ruling in his favor. The trial court determined that Grodeck was ineligible for fees as a pro se attorney; in the alternative, the trial court determined that because Grodeck was a party defending himself against an action brought under the NJCRA, he could not be a prevailing party. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s determination, ruling that a pro se attorney who prevailed in an action brought under the NJCRA could not recover counsel fees. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had denied counsel fees to a pro se attorney who prevailed in an action under the federal Civil Rights, upon which NJCRA had been patterned. The court held that awarding a pro se attorney counsel fees in a NJCRA action was contrary to the fee-shifting provision’s policy of encouraging all litigants to engage the services of independent counsel, and would have created an unwanted disincentive for attorneys to hire counsel.

11-2-2938 Schubert v. Coster, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Defendants and plaintiffs cross-appealed the judgment and damages award in their dispute over a failed plan to build a shared driveway between their properties and to relocate a 150-year-old well house. The trial judge found that defendants were entitled to recover damages from plaintiffs because plaintiffs had agreed to share costs incurred for professional fees relating to the driveway but were not entitled to recover fees and costs incurred in a prerogative writ relating to municipality’s granting permits to plaintiffs. The judge also found that defendants had to reimburse plaintiffs for the cost of relocating the well house which defendants destroyed. Defendants argued that the trial judge made “erroneous” credibility findings and erred by barring the rebuttal testimony of a necessary witness. Plaintiffs contended they never authorized defendant’s hiring an architect and were entitled to damages for the destruction of the well house. The court found that the parties’ contentions lacked sufficient merit to warrant written discussion and that substantial credible evidence supported the trial judge’s findings.