SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2201-15T3

ELAR REALTY CO.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LIMITED

and GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

Argued September 14, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Simonelli, Haas and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. 

L-0709-11.

Arnold G. Shurkin argued the cause for 

appellant.

Scott K. Winikow argued the cause for 

respondents (Donovan Hatem, LLP, attorneys; 

Mr. Winikow and Lauren M. Ippolito, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Elar Realty Co., appeals from the dismissal of its 

complaint on summary judgment granted in favor of defendants

Environmental Risk Limited (ERL) and GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 11, 2017
2 A-2201-15T3

(GZA) and from the denial of its motion for reconsideration. The 

Law Division dismissed plaintiff's complaint because it was filed 

after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitation that 

plaintiff agreed to in its contract with ERL. We affirm.

The relevant facts when viewed in the light most favorable 

to plaintiff, see Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 213 N.J.

573, 577 (2013) (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995)), can be summarized as follows. In 2000, 

plaintiff and ERL entered into a written contract for ERL to 

perform services relating to the remediation of plaintiff's 

property. Plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the 

negotiation of the contract.

The contract contained a provision that required plaintiff 

to bring any "legal action, regardless of the form thereof, . . . 

against ERL [no] more than one year after ERL has ceased providing 

services for that specific project for which the damages were 

alleged to have [o]curred." In another clause, the contract stated 

that "[a]ny claims, counterclaims, disputes and other matters in

question between ERL and [plaintiff] arising out of or relating 

to this Contract for Services or the breach thereof ("disputes") 

must be filed within one year of the provision of those services 

under dispute." 
3 A-2201-15T3

The contract also did not contain any prohibitions against 

assignment and recognized each party's ability to freely assign 

its interest in the agreement. Specifically, the parties agreed, 

"[t]he covenants and agreements contained in this Contract for 

Services shall apply to, inure to the benefit of and be binding 

upon the parties hereto and upon their respective successors and 

assigns." 

After ERL commenced performing services for plaintiff, on 

June 9, 2006, ERL and GZA entered into an asset purchase agreement 

with GZA purchasing ERL's assets and open contracts. Plaintiff

was not part of this agreement, but was eventually sent a notice 

from GZA and ERL informing it of the transaction. Afterwards, GZA 

undertook responsibility for ERL's work on plaintiff's property. 

Plaintiff accepted services from GZA for a substantial period, 

paying its bills without any objection.

GZA performed services for plaintiff until December 24, 2008, 

when plaintiff's attorney sent GZA a letter terminating GZA 

services. Plaintiff terminated the contract because another 

company it hired to assess the work performed by ERL and GZA 

reported there were "deficiencies in GZA's work." GZA immediately 

stopped its work on the project and no action was taken by either 

party for two years regarding their rights under the original 

contract between plaintiff and ERL. 
4 A-2201-15T3

In January 2011, plaintiff filed its complaint in this action.

After a tortuous period of protracted litigation, in 2015 ERL and 

GZA filed a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff opposed, 

arguing that the one-year statute of limitation was not enforceable

because the assignment between ERL and GZA was invalid, and the 

shortened period to file suit stated in the contract was 

unreasonable and otherwise unenforceable. Judge Garry J. Furnari 

granted the motion on October 5, 2015, dismissing plaintiff's

complaint with prejudice. 

In his comprehensive oral decision, Judge Furnari carefully 

reviewed the undisputed facts and applicable case law and found 

that, contrary to plaintiff's arguments, there was no obstacle to 

ERL's right to assign its contract with plaintiff to GZA. The 

judge then analyzed the case law applicable to the enforcement of 

the contract's one-year statute of limitation and applied it to 

the date upon which plaintiff discovered issues with ERL and GZA's 

performance that gave rise to its claim, concluding that 

plaintiff's action was barred. 

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which Judge Furnari 

denied on January 8, 2016.1 In another comprehensive oral 

 

1 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration addressed other 

interlocutory orders entered by another judge as well as Judge 

Furnari's order granting summary judgment. Although Judge Furnari 
5 A-2201-15T3

decision, the judge explained that despite plaintiff renewing its 

challenges to the assignment of its contract with ERL, and again 

arguing that the one-year statute of limitation was unreasonable 

and unenforceable, plaintiff failed to provide any legal or factual 

support for its arguments in satisfaction of its burden on 

reconsideration. 

On appeal, plaintiff challenges the entry of summary judgment2

in favor of ERL and GZA, arguing that the two entities merged, 

making "GZA responsible for ERL's liabilities," and, in any event, 

ERL's agreement with GZA was an "asset purchase agreement" that

was "not binding on plaintiff." Plaintiff also challenges the 

assignment of its contract by arguing it was not assignable because 

it called for personal services and could not be assigned without 

plaintiff's agreement. In addition, plaintiff alleges that there 

was a conflict of interest between defendants that should have 

prevented their attorney from representing them. Finally, it 

contends that the one-year statute of limitation "was unreasonable 

 

addressed the other orders and denied reconsideration, his 

decision as to those orders is not the subject of plaintiff's 

appeal. 

2 Although included in plaintiff's notice of appeal, plaintiff's 

brief does not contain any arguments directed to Judge Furnari's 

order denying reconsideration.
6 A-2201-15T3

and unenforceable as a result of the application of equitable 

discovery."

We begin by acknowledging the legal principles that guide our

review. Our review of a motion judge's grant of summary judgment 

is de novo. Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017). We

apply the same standard as the motion judge, which requires us to 

examine the competent evidential materials submitted by the 

parties to identify whether there are genuine issues of material 

fact and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to summary 

judgment as a matter of law. Ibid. We afford no deference to the 

motion judge's legal conclusions. See Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n 

v. Adria Towers, L.L.C., 226 N.J. 403, 414-15 (2016). We review 

a judge's decision to deny reconsideration for an abuse of 

discretion. See R. 4:49-2; Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super.

274, 288 (App. Div. 2010) (citing D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. 

Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)).

We conclude from our review that plaintiff's contentions are

without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following brief 

comments.

Many of plaintiff's arguments on appeal were not raised before 

the motion judge and there is no reason for us to consider them 

on appeal. See Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) 
7 A-2201-15T3

(citation omitted); Alloway v. Gen. Marine Indus., L.P., 149 N.J.

620, 643 (1997); Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 

(1973). Plaintiff also failed to address other arguments in its 

briefs and those arguments are deemed waived for that reason. See

N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Alloway Twp., 438 N.J. Super. 501, 

505-06 n.2 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 222 N.J. 17 (2015); 

Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 5 on R.

2:6-2 (2018).

Procedural issues aside, the motion judge's conclusions that 

the one-year statute of limitation agreed to by the parties was 

enforceable and that plaintiff's contract with ERL was freely 

assignable are unassailable under the facts presented by plaintiff 

in opposition to summary judgment and on reconsideration. See

Mirra v. Holland Am. Line, 331 N.J. Super. 86, 91 (App. Div. 2000) 

(citing Eagle Fire Prot. Corp. v. First Indem. of Am. Ins. Co.,

145 N.J. 345, 354 (1996)) (addressing agreements as to statutes

of limitations); see also Somerset Orthopedic Assocs, P.A. v.

Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of N.J., 345 N.J. Super. 410,

415-16 (App. Div. 2001) (citing Owen v. CNA Ins./Continental Cas.

Co., 167 N.J. 450, 460-61 (2001)) (addressing assignment of

contracts). We affirm therefore substantially for the reasons

expressed by Judge Furnari in his thoughtful and cogent oral

decisions.
8 A-2201-15T3

Affirmed.