SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3127-18T1

MAURICE OPARAJI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

REINALDO CAVALIERI and

FENCES R US, LLC,

Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________

Submitted January 15, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Mawla.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. DC-014116-18.

Maurice Oparaji, appellant pro se.

Friend & Wenzel, LLC, attorneys for respondents 

(Karan Malhotra, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Maurice Operaji appeals from a November 26, 2018 judgment,

entered following a bench trial, in favor of defendants Reinaldo Cavalieri and 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 3, 2020
2

A-3127-18T1

Fences R US, LLC. He also appeals from two orders denying his motions for 

reconsideration dated January 25, and March 6, 2019. We affirm.

In March 2018, the parties contracted for defendants to construct a fence 

on plaintiff's Newark property in exchange for $3500. After consulting surveys 

of the property, defendants constructed the fence ten-to-twelve inches inside the 

property line, so the cement footings for the fence did not encroach onto the 

neighboring property. In accordance with the contract, the fence was six feet 

high in the rear and made of PVC. The contract also stipulated defendants would 

apply for a construction permit. 

Following completion of the fence, plaintiff sent defendants a letter 

stating: 

After our discussion, I contacted Upendra 

Sapkota of Planning, Zoning, and Sustainability. He 

insisted, and warned, that the fence must be placed at 

the borderline as per the survey; otherwise, you are 

tampering with the zoning map in violation of the 

Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, you must, with 

immediate effect, correct the present position of the 

fence that gives away [twelve] inches of the property 

from [four foot four inches] to [three foot four inches].

Plaintiff sent defendants a second communication to a similar effect. 

Plaintiff filed a Special Civil Part complaint alleging breach of contract 

and zoning ordinances. At trial, plaintiff presented a Newark zoning ordinance 
3

A-3127-18T1

but did not adduce testimony to show the fence, as installed, violated the 

ordinance or required a permit. To the contrary, he called a Newark zoning 

official who testified defendants did not violate the law in constructing the 

fence.

Cavalieri also testified at the trial, but his direct examination is not 

included in the record, and we were only provided his testimony on cross 

examination. He testified the fence was installed inside the property line in 

accordance with Newark ordinances. He explained because the fence's concrete 

foundation stretched five inches in all directions and needed to be within 

plaintiff's property line, the fence was installed ten-to-twelve inches inside the 

property line. 

The parties' contract called for six-foot-high fencing made entirely of 

PVC. To prove defendants were in breach, plaintiff confronted Cavalieri with a 

November 2014 Newark Zoning Land Regulation stating PVC fences were

permitted only in the rear yard areas, and the maximum height for side and rear 

yard fencing was five feet. However, Cavalieri testified he called the city and 

learned the fence could be six feet high and that PVC was permissible. He also 

testified he applied for a permit and was informed one was not required. 
4

A-3127-18T1

In his oral opinion, the judge credited Cavalieri and the zoning official's 

testimony, and found defendants placed the fence in the proper location to 

ensure no portion of the installation, including the cement foundation, crossed 

the property line onto the neighboring property. The judge also found 

defendants fulfilled their obligation by attempting to obtain a permit and 

plaintiff failed to prove a breach of contract by proving one was required. 

Similarly, the judge found plaintiff failed to prove defendants violated Newark 

ordinances. The judge concluded the "fence was installed in a manner that 

comported with sound practice. It comported with the party's intention. It 

comported with the letter of the contract." Plaintiff's successive motions for 

reconsideration were denied. 

On appeal, plaintiff reiterates the arguments he raised at trial. He asserts

the trial judge's decision was against the weight of the evidence and contends 

the judge improperly assigned him the burden of proving a permit was required 

where defendants were contractually bound to obtain a permit, failed to do so,

and instead constructed a fence in violation of Newark ordinances. 

Appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions is limited. 

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). "Findings 

by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, 
5

A-3127-18T1

substantial and credible evidence." Ibid. (citation omitted). We intervene only 

when "they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, 

relevant and reasonably credible evidence." Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 

78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963). A decision to deny a motion for 

reconsideration is within the motion judge's discretion. Fusco v. Newark Bd. of 

Educ., 349 N.J. Super. 455, 462 (App. Div. 2002). 

At the outset, we note plaintiff did not provide the transcript for the first 

day of trial, which contained his direct testimony. This hampers our ability to 

evaluate his arguments. Rule 2:5-3(b) states "the transcript shall include the 

entire proceedings in the court . . . from which the appeal is taken."

Notwithstanding, the record provided supports the judgment entered in 

favor of defendants. As it relates to the issue of the permit, plaintiff contends

$500 of the $3500 contract price was to pay for the cost of securing a permit to 

construct the fence. However, the parties' contract did not delineate a cost for 

the permit, and merely stated defendants would "apply for [a] permit." In this 

regard, as the judge found, defendants "satisfied that obligation by [inquiring]

of the [c]ity as to whether a permit was . . . necessary and determined that it was 

not."
6

A-3127-18T1

We also reject plaintiff's argument that the judge erred by improperly 

placing the burden of proof on him to demonstrate breach of the contract as it 

related to the location, size, and material of the fencing. Fundamentally, 

"plaintiff has the burden to show that the parties entered into a valid contract, 

that the defendant failed to perform his obligations under the contract and that 

the plaintiff sustained damages as a result." Murphy v. Implicito, 392 N.J. 

Super. 245, 265 (App. Div. 2007) (quotation omitted). Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 

101(b)(1), "'[b]urden of persuasion' means the obligation of a party to meet the 

requirements of a rule of law that the fact be proved . . . by a preponderance of 

the evidence." 

The substantial, credible evidence supports the trial judge's conclusion 

that plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove a breach of contract. The judge 

did not abuse his discretion when he denied plaintiff's motion for 

reconsideration. 

Affirmed.