Opinion ID: 2319975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Rehearing

Text: On the November 16, 2007, return date, defendants' basic contention was that the judge was without power to reconsider the original grant of summary judgment based on what he had heard at the proof hearing. The judge disagreed: while a case is pending a trial judge has the inherent discretion to seek to correct any perceived mistakes that [he or she] made. I have that right to do that. This case is still before me, and to just blindly ignore something would be wrong to do. The judge explained that he wanted to give these other parties who [he] let out an opportunity to be heard on that, because that's the fair thing to do. He also noted that the decision to revisit the grant of summary judgment was done at his initiative and was not done at the request of plaintiff's counsel. At the rehearing, the judge attempted several times to explain his reasoning for reconsidering his earlier decision to grant summary judgment. He stated: The summary judgment was based upon the certifications of the parties and the exhibits presented. And as I said a few moments ago, I think thatthat where I was in error that there were sufficient conflicts in those certifications and I shouldn't have relied upon them and that was bornethat came outwas made clearer to me after hearing some of the testimony that I made available to you. Had that testimony been available to me prior to the certifications, it's doubtful that I would have entered summary judgment. When pressed by defense counsel for specifics as to what made him change his mind, the trial judge again attempted to clarify his reasons: Well, I'm going to issue a written opinion which I think is probably a better way to do this. After I heard the hearing in its entirety I came to the conclusion that there were significant factual issues related to the ones that you enumerated that I relied upon in the certifications. There were conflicting certifications to begin with, and our Courts have clearly said that when you have conflicting certification[s] that almost mandates that there be some sort of hearing to resolve those certifications. And so, fairness and justice, if in the end when the dust all settles your clients may be proven to be as pure as the new driven snow. I don't know. But all I know is that I think I inappropriately relied upon those certifications and their conflicts. And that was borne out to me in spades, so to speak, after the proof hearing. After the rehearing, the judge vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and issued a written opinion in which he found that the original summary judgment record presented genuine issues of material fact regarding agency, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and CFA violations. In addition, the judge noted that he had been in error in ruling that real estate professionals are not subject to the CFA.