SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0599-18T2

LEADER TRANSPORTATION,

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GREEN TRADE LOGISTICS, 

INC.,

Defendant,

and

YONI BENHAIM,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

Submitted May 30, 2019 – Decided June 24, 2019

Before Judges Simonelli and Whipple.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1567-18.

Garry Pogil, attorney for appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-0599-18T2

Laddey, Clark & Ryan, LLP, attorneys for respondent 

(Jonathan Noah Frodella, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Leader Transportation, Inc., appeals from the September 7, 2018 

and September 25, 2018 orders denying its motion to amend the complaint and 

granting defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reason that follow, we dismiss.

We note at the outset, plaintiff has not provided the record of the motions;

therefore, we do not know the legal basis for the trial court's determination 

beyond what we discern from the judge's ruling in the orders. Based on our 

review of the limited appellate record, Green Trade Logistics, Inc. (Green Trade) 

engaged plaintiff to pick up and deliver shipping containers. Defendant Yoni 

Benhaim was, according to plaintiff, Green Trade's vice-president. In April 

2016, plaintiff alleged Green Trade agreed to pay plaintiff $325 per transaction.

On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against Green 

Trade. On June 1, 2018, defendant pro se filed an answer denying the allegations 

with an affirmative defense. Green Trade never answered the complaint, and 

the trial court entered default against it on July 20, 2018.

On September 7, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's 

complaint against defendant "for the reasons stated in the moving papers." The 

court stated, "[t]he [c]omplaint is not sufficiently pled to establish personal 
3

A-0599-18T2

liability against the movant under [State, Department of Environmental

Protection v. Ventron Corp., 94 N.J. 473 (1983)]." The judge entered a second 

September 7, 2018 order granting plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the 

complaint and denying defendant's motion to dismiss. The order stated:

[p]laintiff has not sufficiently pled a cause of action for 

promissory estoppel. [See O'Neill v. State, Dep't of 

Treasury, 178 N.J. Super. 211 (App. Div. 1981)], [and

has not] sufficiently pled a cause of action to pie[r]ce

the corporate veil. [See Richard A. Pulaski Constr. Co. 

v. Air Frame Hangars, Inc., 195 N.J. 457 (2008)].

On September 14, 2018, defendant's counsel submitted a letter to the trial 

court seeking clarification of the conflicting orders entered on September 7, 

2018. On September 25, 2018, the trial court entered a corrected order

confirming that defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, plaintiff's crossmotion to amend the complaint was denied and plaintiff's amended complaint 

"was improvidently entered and will [be] stricken from the docket."

On October 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On October 16, 

2018, plaintiff amended its notice of appeal, appealing both the September 7 and

September 25, 2018 orders. On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial judge erred by 

denying its motion to amend the complaint and that the amended complaint 

stated claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel and provided 
4

A-0599-18T2

sufficient grounds to pierce the corporate veil. Based upon the record provided,

we cannot address these arguments.

Although the court's orders were included in the appellate record, none of 

the moving papers presented to the trial judge were provided. Plaintiff did not 

list the items presented to the trial judge; thus, we do not know what the trial 

judge considered. "A party on appeal is obligated to provide the court with 'such 

other parts of the record . . . as are essential to the proper considerations of the 

issues.'" Society Hill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Society Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 

163, 177 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I)); see also R. 2:6-3.

1

Dismissed.

 

1

The record on appeal shall consist of all papers on file 

in the court . . . , with all entries as to matters made on 

the records of such courts . . ., the stenographic 

transcript . . . , and all papers filed with or entries made 

on the records of the appellate court.

[R. 2:5-4(a).]