NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 on 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-1856-15T2
BINA SHAH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MAGUIRE BURKE, INC.
REAL ESTATE AGENCY,
Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________________
Argued May 2, 2017 – Decided September 19, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-837-
13.
Bina Shah, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SUMNERS, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Bina Shah appeals from the November 17, 2015 order
denying her motion for reconsideration of a June 3, 2015 order,
which denied her default judgment request for an unpaid commission
from defendant Maguire Burke Real Estate, Inc. Real Estate Agency.1
We affirm.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant, a real estate broker,
as a licensed real estate salesperson under a written employment
contract. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging she was entitled to
an additional commission of $80,000 from the sale of a banquet
facility/liquor store (the property) that had occurred five years
ago.2 Default was subsequently entered against defendant when no
answer to the complaint was filed.
In a June 3, 2015 order, the trial court denied plaintiff's
unopposed pro se motion for entry of default judgment.3
1
Plaintiff's notice of appeal seeks review only of the court's
November 17, 2015 order denying her motion for reconsideration,
not the June 3, 2015 order denying entry of default judgment. We
could, therefore, limit our review to that order alone. See W.H.
Industries, Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397 N.J. Super. 455,
458 (App. Div. 2008); Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Newark, 349
N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 544,
(2002). We choose to overlook that technical error and consider
the merits of defendant's appeal because "the substantive issues
in the case and the basis for the . . . judge's ruling [at motion
to enter default judgment] and [the] reconsideration motion[]
[were] the same." Fusco, supra, 349 N.J. Super. at 461.
2
Her claim for "tortious interference with a contractual
relationship and prospective economic advantage" is not the
subject of appeal.
3
Based upon the record provided, we assume that the court's
ruling was on the papers without an oral or written opinion by the
court.
2 A-1856-15T2
Apparently, plaintiff did not present sufficient proofs because
the order stated that she could file a motion for reconsideration
or a motion to vacate the order, and such motion needed to provide:
1. The agreement which governs commissions
allegedly due and owing to [p]laintiff;
2. A copy of the signed real estate contract;
3. A copy of the applicable statutes or
administrative codes that govern
[p]laintiff's affirmative claims;
4. A list of commission checks received by
[p]laintiff; [and]
5. A written calculation of the real estate
commissions which have been paid and which
[p]laintiff claims are due and owing.
Plaintiff submitted a motion for reconsideration directly to
the trial court, which the court directed her to file with the
court clerk. Plaintiff was further directed to submit a written
certification providing the amount of commission she was paid and
the amount due. She complied, submitting a certification stating
she was due $74,308 based upon a forty percent commission on
defendant's gross five percent commission on the property's seven
million dollar original contract purchase price. As with
plaintiff's motion for default judgment, defendant submitted no
opposition.
3 A-1856-15T2
On November 17, 2015, the court entered an order denying
plaintiff's reconsideration motion and rendered an oral opinion.
The court determined that based upon an addendum to the contract
of sale executed by the seller, buyer, and defendant, the purchase
price was reduced to $6.7 million and the commission was reduced
to $200,000. The court noted that, according to the real estate
closing statement, the property actually sold for only $6,550,000,
but defendant was still paid a $200,000 commission.
The court found no merit to plaintiff's contention that she
was entitled to an additional commission due to a buyer she
produced who executed a letter of intent to purchase the property
for $7.4 million, because a contract was not executed for that
amount.
After plaintiff appealed, the trial court submitted a written
amplification of its decision. R. 2:5-1(b). Based upon
plaintiff's submission, the court found that, shortly following
the property's October 8, 2008 closing, she received $43,750, a
twenty-five percent commission based upon the following
calculation:
Sales Price $6,550,000
Defendant's %5 base commission $200,000
Less fee to P. Ryan Consulting, LLC $25,000
Balance $175,000
4 A-1856-15T2
25% commission $43,750
Less advance $4,308
Paid to plaintiff after closing $39,442
Sometime after the sale, plaintiff received an additional
commission check from defendant in the amount of $26,250.4 The
court therefore found that plaintiff received a total commission
of $70,000 from the property sale, forty percent of $175,000.5
Plaintiff argues that defendant's $25,000 payment to P. Ryan
Consulting violates N.J.S.A. 45:15-3, and the payment of her
additional $26,250 commission was untimely under N.J.S.A. 45:15-
3.1.
In accordance with Rule 4:43-2(b), a plaintiff may be granted
a judgment by default upon application to the court where a default
has been properly entered against a defendant. The rule gives the
court authority to "determine the amount of damages" through a
proof hearing "as it deems appropriate." Ibid. A plaintiff is
4
It is unclear from the record when the check was received.
According to plaintiff's certification dated November 24, 2014,
she received the check seven weeks after the closing. However,
almost ten months later, she submitted another certification that
the additional commission check was received two-and-a-half weeks
after the closing. The certification included an exhibit of a
check stub with defendant's name and the following type:
"10/27/2008," "Bina Shah," "$26,250," and "Cedar Gardens – CZ
Patel." Cedar Gardens is the name of the property.
5
$4308 advance, plus $39,442, plus $26,250.
5 A-1856-15T2
also required "to furnish proof [as to] liability." Johnson v.
Johnson, 92 N.J. Super. 457, 464 (App. Div. 1966); accord Slowinski
v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 264 N.J. Super. 172, 183 (App. Div. 1993).
"[T]he question of what proofs are necessary is inherently within
the judge's discretion." Chakravarti v. Pegasus Consulting Grp.,
Inc., 393 N.J. Super. 203, 210 (App. Div. 2007). The trial court
is obliged to view a plaintiff's proofs indulgently, and the
general practice is "to require only a prima facie case." Heimbach
v. Mueller, 229 N.J. Super. 17, 20 (App. Div. 1988); see also
Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 2.2.2 on
R. 4:43-2 (2016).
We have also determined that we will not disturb a judge's
denial of a motion for reconsideration absent an abuse of
discretion. See Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289
(App. Div. 2010). Plaintiff has not demonstrated such an abuse
of discretion.
We conclude plaintiff has failed to establish that N.J.S.A.
45:15-3.1 applies. The statute prohibits a broker from paying a
referral fee or commission to a person not licensed in New Jersey
unless the person "is a licensed real estate broker of another
jurisdiction in which the licensed broker maintains a bona fide
office." Ibid. Plaintiff's mere assertion that P. Ryan Consulting,
which was paid $25,000 from the commission received by defendant,
6 A-1856-15T2
is not a New Jersey licensed real estate broker based upon
purported print-out records of the State of New Jersey, Department
of Banking and Insurance, is insufficient. There is no
authentication of the documents, N.J.R.E. 901, and the documents
were not self-authenticating. N.J.R.E. 902. Moreover, even if
the documents were considered, they fail to establish that P. Ryan
Consulting was not a licensed real estate broker in New Jersey or
in any state when it received the fee.
Plaintiff's remaining argument concerning the timing of her
commission lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
7 A-1856-15T2