SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-1166-21 

DENNIS GENTILE and DIANE 

GENTILE, husband and wife, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v.

MARY JEANNE WHITE, MARY 

JEANNE WHITE a/k/a MARY 

JANE WHITE, MARY JEANNE 

WHITE a/k/a MARY J. WHITE, 

CAREAGA ENGINEERING, INC., 

JEFFREY J. CAREAGA, 

PEACH BROTHERS, 

PEACH BROTHERS d/b/a 

PEACH BROTHERS SEPTIC 

CONTRACTORS, PEACH 

BROTHERS SEPTIC 

CONTRACTORS, PEACH 

BROTHERS SEPTIC 

CONTRACTORS d/b/a PEACH 

BROTHERS, THOMAS PEACH, 

THOMAS PEACH a/k/a TOM 

PEACH, THOMAS PEACH d/b/a 

PEACH BROTHERS, THOMAS 

PEACH d/b/a PEACH BROTHERS 

SEPTIC CONTRACTORS, 

ROBERT PEACH, ROBERT 

PEACH a/k/a BOB PEACH, 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-1166-21

ROBERT PEACH d/b/a PEACH 

BROTHERS, ROBERT PEACH 

d/b/a PEACH BROTHERS 

SEPTIC CONTRACTORS, 

TINA WROBEL, TINA WROBEL 

d/b/a PEACH BROTHERS, and 

TINA WROBEL d/b/a PEACH 

BROTHERS SEPTIC 

CONTRACTORS, 

Defendants-Respondents. 

______________________________

Submitted March 15, 2023 – Decided May 6, 2024 

Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-1522-19. 

DRLavoie Law LLP and JSD Legal, LLC, attorneys for 

appellants (Daniel R. Lavoie and Jason Scotto 

D'Aniello, on the briefs). 

Law Offices of Damian Christian Shammas, LLC, 

attorneys for respondent Mary Jeanne White (Damian 

Christian Shammas, of counsel and on the brief). 

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

VERNOIA, P.J.A.D. 

 This matter arises out of a residential real estate transaction. In their 2019 

complaint, plaintiffs Dennis Gentile and Diane Gentile alleged they purchased 

a Morris County residence from defendant Mary Jeanne White (White) in 2017 
3 A-1166-21

and later discovered White had made misrepresentations concerning the 

condition of the property and its septic system, sold the property with a defective 

septic system, and failed to disclose the well on the property was contaminated 

and the property had other environmental issues. In their complaint, plaintiffs 

asserted causes of action against White for recission of the contract of sale, 

breach of contract, and equitable fraud. 

 Plaintiffs also asserted causes of action against defendants Careaga 

Engineering, Inc. and Jeffrey J. Careaga ("the Careaga defendants") who White 

had retained to design a new septic system prior to the sale of the property to 

plaintiffs, and defendants Peach Brothers, Thomas Peach, Robert Peach, and 

Tina Wrobel ("the Peach Brothers defendants") who had installed the newly 

designed septic system prior to White's transfer of title to the property to 

plaintiffs.1 In November 2017, after the new septic system was installed, 

plaintiffs completed their purchase from White and closed title on the property. 

1

 The complaint separately asserted causes of action for negligence, professional 

malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of warranty against the Peach 

Brothers defendants and a professional malpractice claim against the Careaga 

defendants. The complaint also alleged the individuals among the Peach 

Brothers defendants do business under various other names, including "Peach 

Brothers Septic Contractors." 
4 A-1166-21

Plaintiffs later dismissed with prejudice their claims against the Peach Brothers 

defendants and the Careaga defendants. Thus, on appeal, plaintiffs challenge 

only the court's orders as they pertain to their claims against White. 

 Plaintiffs' appeal is founded exclusively on their challenges to a series of 

interlocutory orders they contend fall into three categories: discovery orders,2

summary judgment orders,3 and an order denying their motion to amend their 

complaint.4 For purposes of our analysis of the issues presented on appeal, and 

2

 The discovery orders plaintiffs challenge on appeal include three January 13, 

2021 orders. The first denied plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery deadline 

for the completion of fact-witness depositions. The second granted defendants' 

motion to bar plaintiffs' liability experts from testifying at trial as a sanction for 

plaintiffs' alleged spoliation of evidence. The third granted defendants' motion 

to quash subpoenas plaintiffs had issued for the deposition of eight fact 

witnesses. Plaintiffs also challenge a February 19, 2021 order denying their 

motion for reconsideration of the January 13, 2021 orders. 

3

 The challenged summary judgment orders include: July 19, 2021 orders 

denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment against White and 

denying White's motion for summary judgment; August 27, 2021 orders denying

plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the court's July 19, 2021 order denying 

plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and an order granting White 

summary judgment on claims—recission and equitable fraud—plaintiffs 

asserted against White in their complaint; and a September 24, 2021 order 

denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the court's August 27, 2021 

order granting White's motion for summary judgment. 

 

4

 Plaintiffs also argue the court erred by entering an October 21, 2021 order 

denying their motion to amend the complaint. 
5 A-1166-21

for reasons we explain, it is unnecessary to detail the arguments made in support 

of, and in opposition to, the motions that resulted in each of the challenged 

orders. It is also unnecessary to detail the court's extensive reasoning supporting 

its issuance of the various orders. 

We note only that as a result of the court's disposition of the summary 

judgment motions, and subsequent motions for reconsideration, the court 

dismissed plaintiff's recission and equitable fraud claims. Thus, the only 

remaining claim against White was plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, which 

was disposed of in the December 17, 2021 final judgment confirming an 

arbitration award granting judgment to White on that claim. 

In their 140-page merits brief on appeal, plaintiffs do not mention that 

following the court's orders granting White summary judgment on their recission 

and equitable fraud claims, the court ordered that the remaining breach of

contract claim proceed to arbitration in accordance with Rule 4:26A. At oral 

argument, we requested that counsel provide additional written submissions 

concerning the arbitration and its disposition. 

 Counsel's submissions explain that the arbitration took place on October 

28, 2021, and the arbitrator entered "a finding of no cause of action" in White's 

favor. Plaintiff thereafter did not request a trial de novo in accordance with Rule 
6 A-1166-21

4:21A-6(b)(1). White subsequently moved to confirm the arbitration award in 

accordance with Rule 4:21A-6(b)(3), and plaintiffs did not oppose White's 

motion. On December 17, 2021, the court entered an order confirming the 

arbitration award and granting White final judgment on plaintiffs' breach of 

contract claim. 

 A trial court's decision whether to confirm or vacate an arbitration award 

is appealable and presents an issue of law that we review de novo. Minkowitz 

v. Israeli, 433 N.J. Super. 111, 136 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Manger v.

Manger, 417 N.J. Super. 370, 376 (App. Div. 2010)). In their notice of appeal, 

plaintiffs list the December 17, 2021 order as one from which they appeal, but 

their merits brief and letter submission on appeal do not offer any argument 

challenging the validity of the court's order confirming the award.5 As such, any 

putative challenge to the court's final order confirming the arbitration award is 

5

 We recognize that in plaintiffs' post-argument letter submission, they contend 

that the arbitration proceeding was infected by the results of the court's 

purportedly erroneous interlocutory orders from which they otherwise appeal, 

but they offer no claim or argument that the court erred by entering the 

December 17, 2021 final order confirming the arbitration award. Nor could 

they, since they did not file for a trial de novo and did not oppose White's motion 

to confirm the arbitration award in the trial court. See Jones v. First Nat'l

Supermarkets, Inc., 329 N.J. Super. 125, 126-27 (App. Div. 2000). 
7 A-1166-21

deemed abandoned. See Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP v. N.J. Dep't of L. & Pub. 

Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489, 496 n.5 (App. Div. 2011). 

 The arbitration of a civil action is governed by Rule 4:21A. Grey v.

Trump Castle Assocs., L.P., 367 N.J. Super. 443, 447 (App. Div. 2004). The 

Rule establishes the required procedure for arbitrating civil disputes, see Rule

4:21-4, and "is designed to promote efficiency" and conserve judicial resources, 

Grey, 367 N.J. Super. at 447. 

 A party dissatisfied with an arbitration award rendered pursuant to the 

Rule may file a demand for a trial de novo "within [thirty] days of the filing of 

the arbitration award." R. 4:21A-6(b)(1). Where a demand for a trial de novo 

is not timely filed, any party may move for confirmation of the award and entry 

of a judgment. R. 4:21A-6(b)(3). 

Pertinent here, a failure to challenge the validity of an arbitration award 

rendered in accordance with Rule 4:21A, as plaintiffs did here by failing to 

request a trial de novo or by opposing White's motion to confirm the award, bars 

a party from challenging the court's prior interlocutory orders in the matter. 

"[T]he judgment confirming an arbitration award is designed to preclude all 

further proceedings in the action, including appellate review." Grey, 367 N.J. 

Super. at 448. As we explained in Grey, "when a matter is submitted to 
8 A-1166-21

arbitration pursuant to Rule 4:21A, a party may preserve a right to seek appellate 

review of an interlocutory order only by filing a demand for a trial de novo. 

Once the award is confirmed and a judgment is entered, an appeal from the 

award or any interlocutory order is barred." Id. at 449 (emphasis added). 

 Here, plaintiffs opted not to either demand a trial de novo or oppose 

White's motion to confirm the arbitration award. Instead, they challenge on 

appeal only a series of interlocutory orders entered prior to the arbitration award. 

However, as we held in Grey, challenges to a trial court's interlocutory orders 

are barred once the arbitration award and final judgment confirming the award 

are entered. Ibid. And that is the case here. We therefore dismiss plaintiffs' 

appeal because it is supported only by challenges to the court's interlocutory 

orders addressing discovery, summary judgment, and pleading-amendment 

issues. See ibid. 

 Appeal dismissed.