BEZALEL GROSSBERGER VS. ROBERT BIFANI (L-1384-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted o n the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-5931-17T2 BEZALEL GROSSBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT BIFANI and ROBERT BIFANI, LLC, Defendants-Respondents. _____________________________ Argued telephonically October 24, 2019 – Decided November 18, 2019 Before Judges Gooden Brown and Mawla. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-1384-16. Bezalel Grossberger, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Respondents have not filed briefs. PER CURIAM In this longstanding dispute over property located at 413 Oak Glen Road in Howell (the property), plaintiff Bezalel Grossberger appeals from a May 1, 2018 Law Division order denying his request for court transcripts at public expense, and denying his request to discharge the claims to the property of defendants Robert Bifani, and his company, Robert Bifani, LLC (collectively, defendants). We note plaintiff's brief and appendix were muddled and lacking in procedural formalities designed for appellate review. We have dismissed appeals before for failing to adhere to procedural guidelines. See, e.g., Cherry Hill Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 194 N.J. Super. 282, 283 (App. Div. 1984) (dismissing an appeal for procedural deficiencies); see also In re Zakhari, 330 N.J. Super. 493, 495 (App. Div. 2000) (holding the court was loathe to dismiss an appeal for procedural deficiencies but did so because the deficiencies made it impossible to properly review the matter). Nonetheless, here, we affirm. We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record. Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the property in 2006 from Marion and Patrick Ruane, as a result of which there was extensive state and federal litigation unrelated to this appeal. See Ruane v. Oak Glen, LLC, No. A-1300- 13 (App. Div. Feb. 2, 2016); Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 F. App'x 84 (3d Cir. 2013); Grossberger v. Ruane, No. 11-3728 (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2011). In 2012, Bifani purchased the property from the Ruanes. In 2016, plaintiff and Bifani's representative apparently engaged in brief discussions about selling the property A-5931-17T2 2 to plaintiff for over $1.7 million, but the parties never reached an agreement. However, on April 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint against Bifani and his company in the Law Division, asserting "various interferences with prospective economic gain through the purchase of [the property] . . . without duly compensating . . . plaintiff." The complaint alleged that Bifani, through his company, "filed several facially apparent fraudulent entries in reference to [the property] on the Monmouth County Record in May of 2012." The complaint asserted claims for "[u]njust [e]nrichment" and "[t]ortious interference," maintained that "an equitable lien attached to the . . . property[,]" and requested relief, including "compensatory and reimbursement awards for [plaintiff's] efforts and expenses towards anticipated purchase of [the] property" because ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals