the LAD and that the defendant township failed to take remedial ac-
tion; or that supervisory employees abused their authority; or that
the employer was negligent in failing to prevent the conduct.
The jury found, as to the first 2 plaintiffs, that the defendant failed to
prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment in the
workplace. The jury found that the first and second plaintiffs suffered
emotional distress as a proximate cause of the actions of the defen-
dant township. The jury did not find that the defendant retaliated
against either of the first 2plaintiffs. The jury found that the third and
fourth plaintiffs were not discriminated or retaliated against by the
defendant due to their military service. The jury found that the defen-
dant lieutenant and defendant chief did not aid or abet the harass-
ment or retaliatory conduct of the defendant township against the
first and second plaintiffs.
As to punitive damages, the jury found that the first and second plain-
tiffsprovedthattheharassingconductofthedefendantwasespecially
egregious and involved the willful wrongful conduct of at least one
member of the “upper management” of the defendant township. The
jury awarded punitive damages of $400,000 each to the first plaintiff
andsecondplaintiffs.
Post-trial motions were made by the plaintiffs seeking payment of
counsel fees as well as a motion for new trial by the defendant town-
ship.Thecourtpartiallygranted theplaintiffs’motionforcounselfees
in the amount of $151,567 for attorney fees; $124,590 for costs; and
$4,541in interest. The defendant’s motion for new trial was denied.
$307,500 VERDICT – CONSUMER FRAUD – BREACH OF CONTRACT – PLAINTIFF
CLAIMS DEFENDANT REALTOR FAILED TO DISCLOSE HE WAS INVESTOR IN PROPERTY
FOR WHICH HE ACTED AS DUAL AGENT DURING PURCHASE BY PLAINTIFF –
PLAINTIFF CONTENDS PROPERTY DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DISCLOSE
FLOODING AND MOLD ISSUES.
Bergen County, NJ
This consumer fraud case arose on December 22,
2015 when the defendant renovation company
purchased the property at 746 Oradell Avenue in
Oradell for the price of $325,000. The property
included an existing single family residence.
Following the purchase of the property, the
defendants undertook and arranged for work to
be performed on the property including
renovation of the property. On November 20,
2016, the plaintiff attended an open house
arranged by the defendant realtor. Neither at the
open house nor at any subsequent time did the
defendant realtor disclose to the plaintiff that he
was a member of the renovation company that
owned, renovated and was then selling the
property. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant
realtor acted ostensibly as a real estate
salesperson with on other interest in the sale or
disposition of the property beyond the anticipated
brokerage commission. Without the benefit of
knowledge that the defendant realtor was in fact
a principal of the renovation company with
interests conflicting with the plaintiff’s interests,
the plaintiff claimed she was deprived of an
opportunity to provide informed consent to a
disclosed dual agency to be carried out by the
defendant.
The plaintiff purchased the property at a price of
$630,000. After the closing, the plaintiff discover that
the work performed in the basement and other parts
of the structure of the property by the defendants in-
cluded substantial flaws, defects and omissions not in
conformance with applicable standards of construc-
tion, with the representations and warranty provided
by the defendant renovation company, nor with in-
spections which were required to be made and ap-
provals which were required to be obtained as the
construction proceeded.
The property continued to suffer persistent water
seepage and penetration in the basement. The
plaintiff demanded that the defendant renovation
company address and resolve the plaintiff’s com-
plaints and the plaintiff offered an opportunity for the
defendant to repair, replace or otherwise correct the
defects and conditions but maintained that the de-
fendants failed or refused to do so. The plaintiff as-
serted that the seepage and penetration of water
into the basement caused the plaintiff to be de-
prived of the enjoyment, use and benefit of a finished
basement (a feature which was a material consider-
ation and inducement of the plaintiff’s purchase),
and, caused the plaintiff and her family to be ex-
posed to hazards and risks generally associated with
the accumulation of dampness, moisture and mold.
The plaintiff further contended that, prior to closing,
the defendants had actual and constructive knowl-
edge of the presence of mold in the property and of
persistent water seepage and penetration into the
basement.
The plaintiff sought damages for common law fraud,
breach of contract of sale, breach of implied cove-
nants of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fidu-
ciary duty, negligence of broker defendants, and
consumer fraud. The defendants denied all of the
plaintiff’s claims and asserted that the renovations on
the property were properly done and that there was
no issue with water in the basement during the time
that the defendants possessed the property nor at
the time of the sale of the house to the plaintiff. The
defendants also maintained that they observed no
mold in the property.
The defendants argued that contractors who per-
formed work in the basement while the defendants
possessed the property did not see any mold, water,
dampness or traces of mold. The defendants argued
that the sump pumps, that the plaintiff claimed were
SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 7
New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
Subscribe Now
