SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-2121-23 

KOHN & KOHN REALTY, LLC, 

CAROL L. KRUEGLE TRUST, 

JENNIFER M. LAWLOR, an 

individual, JAMES D. HANNAH & 

LESLEE A. JACKSON, husband 

and wife, NORMA C. COSTA & 

CLAUDIA COSTA, mother and 

daughter, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v.

MARGARET A. UHRICH, 

MICHAEL P. UHRICH, WILLIAM 

D. MARTIN, and WILLIAM D. 

MARTIN REVOCABLE TRUST, 

 Defendants-Respondents. 

_________________________________ 

MICHAEL P. UHRICH, MARGARET 

A. UHRICH, 

 Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

MARIANO D. MOLINA, ALI 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-2121-23

MOLINA, BOB VAN BUREN, 

ROBYN VAN BUREN, JOE CORBI, 

DANA CORBI, MANNY GUARDA, 

JOANNA GUARDA, CHRIS NICOSIA, 

HILLARY BELL, JOEL HENKIN 

and ELLEN S. HENKIN, and 

WILLIAM D. MARTIN, 

 Defendants, 

and 

KOHN & KOHN REALTY, LLC, 

JENNIFER M. LAWLOR AND 

MATTHEW F. DICZOK, JAMES 

D. HANNAH and LESLEE A. 

JACKSON, CAROL L. KRUEGLE 

TRUST, NORMA C. COSTA and 

CLAUDIA COSTA, 

 Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________

Argued September 19, 2024 – Decided October 1, 2024 

Before Judges Mawla, Natali, and Vinci. 

On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior 

Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Ocean 

County, Docket Nos. C-000099-22 and C-000101-22.

Richard P. DeAngelis, Jr. argued the cause for 

appellants (Connell Foley LLP, attorneys; Timothy E. 

Corriston, of counsel; Richard P. DeAngelis, Jr., of 

counsel and on the briefs; Meredith Sarah Rubin, on the 

briefs). 
3 A-2121-23

Richard Michael King, Jr. argued the cause for 

respondents (KingBarnes, attorneys; Richard Michael

King, Jr. and Marissa J. Hermanovich, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 We granted plaintiffs Kohn & Kohn Realty, LLC, Carole L. Kruegle Trust, 

Jennifer M. Lawlor, James D. Hannah, Leslee A. Jackson, and Norma C. and 

Claudia Costa leave to appeal from a February 15, 2024 order, which granted 

defendants Michael and Margaret Uhrich, William D. Martin, and William D. 

Martin Revocable Trust's motion to bar admission of plaintiffs' expert reports1

at trial. We reverse and remand for the reasons expressed in this opinion. 

 This matter concerns a dispute regarding defendants' construction of new 

bulkhead, which plaintiffs claimed obstructed their ability to use an easement 

that granted them access to Barnegat Bay on Long Beach Island. Defendants 

own property fronting Barnegat Bay on Friends Way. Plaintiffs also own homes 

on Friends Way, and their deeds grant them a twenty-foot-wide easement down 

to defendants' property. For decades, plaintiffs have used the easement to access 

the bay for recreational purposes. 

1

 Although the order barred both of plaintiffs' experts, plaintiffs' appellate briefs 

focus on the report of their engineering expert, which we in turn discuss. 
4 A-2121-23

 Martin has owned his property since the 1980s. The bulkhead on the 

Martin property did not extend into the easement. The Uhrichs purchased their 

property in 2020. The Uhrichs planned to replace the dilapidated bulkhead on 

their property, which did extend into the easement. The bulkhead builder 

recommended they connect their new bulkhead with Martin's. Although the new 

bulkhead was constructed in accordance with township code, which required an 

elevation of six feet above mean sea level, it was done without State and 

Township permits. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) initially issued a permit, but later terminated it because the Uhrichs did 

not: disclose the construction was within an easement; obtain the consent of 

easement holders; and show the attachment of the bulkhead to the Martin 

property in the approved plan. 

 In May 2022, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Chancery Division seeking 

a declaratory judgment that the bulkhead: interfered with their easement; 

unlawfully obstructed the easement area; and tortiously interfered with their 

ability to advertise their properties as summer rentals with bay access. In 

addition to the declaratory relief, plaintiffs sought a judgment requiring the 

Uhrichs to remove the bulkhead and restore the section over the easement area 

to its previous configuration, as well as a judgment enjoining defendants from 
5 A-2121-23

restricting access to the bay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' 

fees and costs.2 Defendants filed their own complaint seeking a declaratory 

judgment regarding who could use the easement, including the activities and 

structures permitted in it, punitive damages, and other relief not relevant to our 

discussion. The court consolidated both matters. 

On August 17, 2022, the court entered a case management order setting 

an initial discovery schedule, including that all depositions be completed by 

December 15, 2022, and expert reports be served by January 30, 2023. On 

August 14, 2023, the court entered a case management order requiring all fact 

and expert witness discovery be completed by September 29, 2023. The order 

granted plaintiffs the ability to file a responsive expert report within twenty days 

of receiving the defense's expert report. Further, the order stated a trial readiness 

conference would occur on December 18, 2023, and scheduled trial for January 

9, 2024. 

2

 In April 2023, plaintiffs amended their complaint to include a count against 

Martin for interference with the easement regarding the construction of the 

bulkhead on his property. The Uhrichs also amended their complaint to include 

claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, 

slander of title, and punitive damages arising from plaintiffs reporting the 

inaccuracies in the Uhrichs' permit to the DEP. 
6 A-2121-23

On October 3, 2022, the court granted plaintiffs partial summary 

judgment. It ruled the title to plaintiffs' properties included the right to the 

easement "for access to both Long Beach Boulevard and the water of the 

Barnegat Bay." 

On November 17, 2023, plaintiffs again moved for summary judgment 

and appended an engineering expert report to the motion. The expert report was 

separately served by email on defendants the same day. Defense counsel 

responded he could not accept the report because it was served late, and he had 

"made decisions and refrained from certain investigation and litigation activities 

based upon the absence of these reports." 

Plaintiffs also wrote to the court on November 17, 2023, seeking an 

adjournment of the trial and a case management conference. They explained 

"[t]he parties had been working cooperatively to schedule and conduct numerous 

depositions." Due to scheduling conflicts and plaintiffs' expert's ill health, the 

parties agreed to a revised case management schedule, which included that 

plaintiffs' counsel offered defense counsel deposition dates between November 

8 and 17, 2023. 
7 A-2121-23

On December 5, 2023, defendants filed a cross-motion for summary 

judgment. On December 22, 2023, defendants filed a motion to bar plaintiffs' 

expert reports. 

Following a settlement conference on January 3, 2024, the court adjourned 

trial from January 9, 2024, to January 29 and 30, 2024. On January 12, 2024, 

the court denied each party's motion for summary judgment. Defendants 

advised they were unable to proceed with trial on January 29. As a result, the 

court heard oral argument on the motion to bar, adjourned trial to April 30, 2024, 

and advised it would decide the motion to bar on the first day of trial. Plaintiffs 

requested the court decide the motion sooner, to enable the parties to prepare for 

trial. 

At the January 12 oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel stated the expert 

reports were served late, because the parties were discussing this issue in tandem 

with the completion of depositions of both fact and expert witnesses, which 

defense counsel insisted upon taking. Defense counsel denied the two issues 

were interrelated. 

Plaintiffs' counsel also claimed the delay was occasioned by the fact their 

expert had experienced health problems, and counsel "kept waiting for . . . him 

to get out of the woods with respect to his health issues." Counsel explained the 
8 A-2121-23

expert was important to his clients' case "not just because he's an engineer, . . . 

he's a commercial diver, . . . a dock builder, and . . . [would be] an excellent and 

. . . compelling witness . . . ." Counsel also filed a certification in opposition to

the motion to bar, claiming defense counsel "did not communicate at that time 

that he no longer wished to depose" certain fact witnesses and "[t]he first 

[plaintiffs] learned that he no longer wished to depose [them] was by way of his 

December 4 letter to the [c]ourt that came more than two weeks after [p]laintiffs 

filed their motion for summary judgment." 

Plaintiffs' expert filed a certification stating he was retained in December 

2022 and inspected the property in February 2023 to evaluate "safety issues 

related to bay access over the bulkhead and whether the new bulkhead could be 

modified to allow access consistent with what existed prior to its construction." 

The expert explained he had multiple orthopedic surgeries over the prior year, 

which impacted his ability to do his work, beginning in January 2023, then 

March 2023, June 2023, August 2023, and September 2023. Following the last 

surgery, he was hospitalized on September 12, 2023, with complications, and 

was not released until late in the evening on September 25, 2023. He required 

further treatment and medication during his convalescence at home, which lasted 

until November 6, 2023. 
9 A-2121-23

The expert explained he worked sporadically between September and 

November 2023. He had to attend many doctor's appointments and only recently 

returned "to a more normal daily schedule." He also had more surgeries 

scheduled. 

 Defense counsel acknowledged plaintiffs' expert had health problems. He 

spoke with plaintiffs' counsel on September 29, 2023, and agreed plaintiffs 

would serve their expert reports on October 20, 2023, with depositions to occur 

on October 27, 2023. However, defense counsel said he never received the 

expert report on October 20. Counsel also filed a certification with the motion 

to bar in which he stressed he rejected the reports because "[u]nder no 

circumstances did [defendants] ever agree that expert reports could be served on 

November 17[] . . . and Defendants would be prejudiced if required to accept or 

respond to [p]laintiffs' expert reports served months out of time, shortly before 

trial." He further certified he made strategic decisions on behalf of his client 

based on the fact plaintiffs were not relying on expert evidence, including 

"elect[ing] not to take a number of depositions because [defendants] felt 

comfortable with [their] record before the [c]ourt as [they] moved toward trial." 

 Defense counsel argued plaintiffs' expert reports were not dispositive "and 

their absence would not render . . . [p]laintiffs' claim futile." Further, given that 
10 A-2121-23

plaintiffs knew about their expert's health problems, they could have hired 

another expert, or formally move to extend discovery. Defendants alleged 

plaintiffs had not shown exceptional circumstances for the late expert 

submission, they also lacked good cause to extend discovery, and defendants 

would be prejudiced by the late submission. 

 When the court asked plaintiffs' counsel what the exceptional 

circumstances were to warrant an extension of discovery, counsel pointed out 

the expert was "out of commission between September [and] November" 2023, 

due to his health problems. The court questioned whether an expert was 

necessary because plaintiffs won partial summary judgment, declaring they had 

a right to access the bay from the easement area. However, plaintiffs' counsel 

pointed out "now the issue is . . . whether the bulkhead should come down . . . 

[a]nd there is [a] need for testimony as to whether and how that can occur . . . 

[and] whether it was reasonable access . . . ." The court remarked that an expert 

was unnecessary to comment on these issues. The parties could testify about 

how "they were impacted by the construction of that bulkhead . . . [and] how it's 

changed the nature of the easement . . . ." 

 On February 15, 2024, the court entered an order barring plaintiffs' experts 

from testifying at trial. Its written findings explained it granted the motion by 
11 A-2121-23

adopting the reasons set forth in defendants' brief "and for the failure of the 

opposition to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the late admission 

of the prof[f]erred reports." 

I.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court made no findings as to why it 

barred their expert. They assert the court ignored the purpose of our best 

practices rules and abused its discretion, because there were exceptional 

circumstances, namely, their expert's severe health issues. Moreover, 

defendants failed to explain how they would be prejudiced by an adjournment, 

especially because they were willing to enter a modified case management 

schedule to accommodate any discovery difficulties. Plaintiffs contend they 

cannot meet the burden of proof as to damages without their expert. 

We review a trial court's decision determining whether to extend a period 

of discovery for abuse of discretion. Leitner v. Toms River Reg'l Schs., 392 

N.J. Super. 80, 87 (App. Div. 2007). Rule 4:24-1(c) permits an extension of 

discovery after the discovery period has closed, upon a showing of exceptional 

circumstances. Exceptional circumstances are satisfied when the movant can 

show 

(1) why discovery has not been completed within time 

and counsel's diligence in pursuing discovery during 
12 A-2121-23

that time; (2) the additional discovery or disclosure 

sought is essential; (3) an explanation for counsel's 

failure to request an extension of the time for discovery 

within the original time period; and (4) the 

circumstances presented were clearly beyond the 

control of the attorney and litigant seeking the 

extension of time. 

[Rivers v. LSC P'ship, 378 N.J. Super. 68, 79 (App.

Div. 2005) (citing Vitti v. Brown, 359 N.J. Super. 40 

(Law Div. 2003)).]

We have stated: 

In our judicial system, "justice is the polestar and our 

procedures must ever be moulded and applied with that 

in mind." N.J. Highway Auth. v. Renner, 18 N.J. 485, 

495 (1955) . . . . "There is an absolute need to 

remember that the primary mission of the judiciary is 

to see justice done in individual cases. Any other goal, 

no matter how lofty, is secondary." Santos v. Est. of 

Santos, 217 N.J. Super. 411, 416 (App. Div. 1986). 

. . . For that reason, "[u]nless otherwise stated, any rule 

may be relaxed or dispensed with by the court in which 

the action is pending if adherence to it would result in 

an injustice." [R. 1:1-2(a).] 

[Salazar v. MKGC Design, 458 N.J. Super. 551, 557-

58 (App. Div. 2019) (second alteration in original).]

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we are convinced the decision to 

bar plaintiffs' experts was a misapplication of discretion and could lead to an 

unjust result. There were exceptional circumstances that clearly warranted 

extending the discovery period. Although we have refrained from discussing 
13 A-2121-23

the details of plaintiffs' expert's medical procedures and ailments in the interests 

of his privacy, his medical problems were substantial. The expert's condition, 

in addition to the fact plaintiffs explained why this expert was important to their 

case, warranted the trial court accommodating an additional extension of the 

discovery deadlines. 

The record also shows plaintiffs acted with diligence in that they and 

defense counsel maintained an open line of communication and accommodated 

one another during the discovery period. Once defense counsel told plaintiffs 

he could no longer accommodate an extension of discovery, plaintiffs' counsel 

communicated with the court about an extension. We recognize plaintiffs 

should have filed a motion to extend the discovery deadlines, but the record 

shows the court, and counsel, worked collaboratively and informally to schedule 

conferences to resolve the pre-trial issues during the case. 

Finally, although defense counsel asserted his clients would be prejudiced 

by the late admission of plaintiffs' expert's reports, neither the appellate briefing, 

nor the record, elucidates the exact nature of the prejudice. Regardless, we are 

unconvinced the prejudice could not be remedied by extending discovery for a 

limited and final time to complete it. 
14 A-2121-23

For these reasons, the February 15, 2024 order barring plaintiffs' 

engineering expert report is reversed and the matter remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. The trial court shall issue a shortened 

and final schedule to enable the parties to complete discovery and try the case. 

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.