SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4772-17T3

TRACIE IRVIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES ECHEANDIA,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

Submitted June 5, 2019 – Decided June 25, 2019

Before Judges Koblitz and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-4125-16.

Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys for appellant 

(Michael J. Confusione, of counsel and on the brief).

Howard D. Lipstein, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4772-17T3

Plaintiff Tracie Irvin appeals from a May 25, 2018 order granting 

summary judgment in favor of defendant Timothy James Echeandia and 

dismissing her complaint. We affirm.

The facts are undisputed. Plaintiff was a tenant in an apartment building 

owned by defendant. The building sustained water damage during Hurricane

Sandy, causing the ceiling in plaintiff's apartment to collapse. Plaintiff claimed 

she suffered injuries to her head and neck when the ceiling collapsed. Plaintiff 

filed a personal injury complaint against defendant in August 2014, alleging 

negligence and nuisance (2014 lawsuit). In March 2016, plaintiff settled her 

claims against defendant. In resolving the 2014 lawsuit, plaintiff signed a 

release that contained the following language:

I release and give up any and all claims and rights 

which I may have against you. This releases all claims, 

including those of which I am not aware and those not 

mentioned in this Release. This Release applies to 

claims resulting from anything which has happened 

until now, I specifically release the following claims:

for any and all claims for personal injuries arising out 

of a ceiling fall down accident which occurred on or 

about October 29, 2012 at [defendant's apartment 

building] and all claims which [were] the subject of a 

cause of action titled Irwin vs Escheandia et [als.] in the 

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division[,] Essex 

County under Docket No. ESX-L-6048-14.
3

A-4772-17T3

Three months after settling the 2014 lawsuit, in June 2016, plaintiff filed 

another personal injury complaint against defendant, alleging she developed 

sinusitis as a result of mold in her apartment caused by Hurricane Sandy water 

damage (2016 lawsuit). In the 2016 lawsuit, plaintiff alleged defendant violated 

provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code, New Jersey's Mold Safe 

Housing Act, and municipal ordinances. She also asserted claims against 

defendant for negligence and breach of contract.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the 

2016 lawsuit. Defendant argued plaintiff's release of claims in the 2014 lawsuit 

precluded her claims in the 2016 lawsuit. He further asserted that plaintiff had 

her apartment tested for mold in 2014 and received a written report in March 

2014, opining the apartment contained excessive levels of mold spores. 

Defendant also claimed plaintiff knew of her sinus problems while the 2014 

lawsuit was pending because she underwent sinus surgery in March 2014, prior 

to dismissal of the 2014 lawsuit. 

The motion judge heard argument on defendant's summary judgment 

motion. In an oral decision placed on the record on May 25, 2018, the judge 

granted the motion, finding plaintiff's execution of the release in the 2014 
4

A-4772-17T3

lawsuit precluded plaintiff's claims against defendant in the 2016 lawsuit. The 

following is the judge's summary of the pertinent timeline: 

October 29, 2012 - Hurricane Sandy caused damage to 

the roof of the defendant's apartment building.

October 29, 2012 - the ceiling in plaintiff's apartment 

collapsed from the water damage attributable to 

Hurricane Sandy, causing injuries to plaintiff's head 

and neck.

October 2012 through 2014 - water from Hurricane 

Sandy and subsequent storms seeped into plaintiff's 

apartment, causing mold to grow in the walls of the 

apartment.

February 2014 - plaintiff experienced problems 

breathing and saw a doctor. The doctor opined plaintiff 

suffered from sinusitis and recommended surgery.

March 2014 - plaintiff had nasal surgery.

August 29, 2014 - plaintiff filed the 2014 lawsuit.

March 28, 2016 - plaintiff settled the 2014 lawsuit and 

signed a release.

June 2016 - plaintiff filed the 2016 lawsuit.

Based on this timeline, the judge concluded that, as of 2014, plaintiff 

"knew there was mold in her apartment," "tested [her apartment] for mold and 

it was positive . . . ," had nasal surgery, and was informed by her surgeon that 

"her [breathing] difficulty was caused by the mold in her apartment." The judge 
5

A-4772-17T3

found that despite awareness of these facts, plaintiff signed a release, and "the 

release couldn't be clearer. She released and gave up all her claims, including 

all claims she didn't even know about." In addition, the judge concluded the

2016 lawsuit was barred by the entire controversy doctrine as plaintiff's claims 

in that lawsuit related to injuries suffered as a result of Hurricane Sandy that 

were asserted and settled in the 2014 lawsuit. He also found the 2016 lawsuit 

was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the second lawsuit involved 

the same parties and same claims as the 2014 lawsuit. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred in dismissing her personal

injury claims in the 2016 lawsuit. 

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the trial court. Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire 

Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016) (citing Mem'l Props., LLC v. 

Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 210 N.J. 512, 524 (2012)). Summary judgment must be 

granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions 

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue 

as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a 

judgment or order as a matter of law." Ibid. (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)). 
6

A-4772-17T3

We first consider whether the release signed by plaintiff barred plaintiff's 

2016 lawsuit. "[T]he scope of a release is determined by the intention of the 

parties as expressed in the terms of the particular instrument . . . . A general 

release, . . . ordinarily covers all claims and demands due at the time of its 

execution and within the contemplation of the parties." Bilotti v. Accurate 

Forming Corp., 39 N.J. 184, 203-204 (1963). When the language in a release 

refers to "any and all claims," courts generally do not permit exceptions. Isetts 

v. Borough of Roseland, 364 N.J. Super. 247, 255-56 (App. Div. 2003). 

Here, the language in the release is unequivocal. Plaintiff expressly 

relinquished "any and all claims and rights" she may have had against defendant 

as of the date she signed the release. As of 2014, plaintiff was aware of her 

personal injuries from mold growing in her apartment due to Hurricane Sandy 

water damage. Yet, in 2016, she released defendant from "any and all claims." 

Based on our review of the record, we discern no error in the judge's dismissal 

of the 2016 lawsuit based on the unambiguous language of the release. 

We next examine whether the 2016 lawsuit was barred by the entire 

controversy doctrine (ECD). The ECD requires the parties to an action raise all 

transactionally-related claims in that action. See Pressler & Verniero, Current 

N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1 on R. 4:30A (2019). Rule 4:30A provides "[n]on-
7

A-4772-17T3

joinder of claims required to be joined by the [ECD] shall result in the preclusion 

of the omitted claims to the extent required by the 

[ECD] . . . ." 

The ECD "embodies the principle that the adjudication of a legal 

controversy should occur in one litigation in only one court; accordingly, all 

parties involved in a litigation should at the very least present in that proceeding 

all of their claims and defenses that are related to the underlying controversy." 

Wadeer v. N.J. Mfrs. Inc. Co., 220 N.J. 591, 605 (2015) (quoting Highland 

Lakes Country Club & Cmty. Ass'n v. Nicastro, 201 N.J. 123, 125 (2009)). The 

goals of the ECD include: "(1) the need for complete and final disposition 

through the avoidance of piecemeal decisions; (2) fairness to parties to the action 

and those with a material interest in the action; and (3) efficiency and the 

avoidance of waste and the reduction of delay." Ibid. (quoting DiTrolio v. 

Antiles, 142 N.J. 253, 267 (1995)). "In determining whether a subsequent claim 

should be barred under [the ECD], 'the central consideration is whether the 

claims against the different parties arise from related facts or the same 

transaction or series of transactions.'" Ibid. (quoting DiTrolio, 142 N.J. at 267).

The judge correctly determined plaintiff's claims in the 2016 lawsuit were 

barred by the ECD. The claims in the 2014 and 2016 lawsuits arose from the 
8

A-4772-17T3

same factual transaction – personal injuries related to Hurricane Sandy water 

damage. Despite the awareness of her nasal injury when she filed the 2014 

lawsuit, plaintiff elected not to include the claim in that litigation. Plaintiff's 

failure to include all injury claims in the 2014 lawsuit arising from the same 

related facts – water damage from Hurricane Sandy – warrants dismissal of her 

2016 lawsuit.

We next consider whether the judge erred in concluding the 2016 lawsuit 

was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata "refers broadly to the 

common-law doctrine barring relitigation of claims or issues that have already 

been adjudicated." Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505 (1991). Res judicata 

"contemplates that when a controversy between parties is once fairly litigated 

and determined it is no longer open to relitigation." Aldeman v. BSI Fin. Servs., 

Inc., 453 N.J. Super. 31, 39 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting Lubliner v. Bd. of 

Alcoholic Beverage Control, 33 N.J. 428, 435 (1960)). "The application of res 

judicata . . . requires substantially similar or identical causes of action and 

issues, parties, and relief sought." Walker v. Choudary, 425 N.J. Super. 135, 

151 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Charlie Brown of Chatham, Inc. v. Bd. of 

Adjustment, 202 N.J. Super. 312, 327 (App. Div. 1985)). 
9

A-4772-17T3

Here, plaintiff's personal injury claims attributable to Hurricane Sandy 

were litigated in the 2014 lawsuit and were resolved in March 2016. Plaintiff 

knew in 2014 that she suffered a nasal injury due to mold growing in her 

apartment after Hurricane Sandy. Yet, she elected not to pursue claims against 

defendant for that injury until she settled the 2014 lawsuit and released "any and 

all claims" against defendant. Plaintiff clearly had the opportunity to include 

her personal injury claims arising from mold in her apartment in the 2014 

lawsuit but did not do so. 

Plaintiff never amended her complaint in the 2014 lawsuit to include her 

nasal injury claim. She then released "any and all claims" against defendant in 

March 2016. Thus, plaintiff's 2016 lawsuit is an improper attempt to litigate 

claims plaintiff could have presented in the 2014 lawsuit and her claims in her 

2016 lawsuit are barred. 

Affirmed.