Court Opinion

ID: 9963006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:07:07.518114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:45.490353
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1710-22

DAVID HOOK and MODERN
METHOD DEVELOPMENT,

          Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

BOHDAN SENYSZYN,

          Defendant-Appellant,

and

KELLY SENYSZYN, MODERN
METHOD TRUST, and MODERN
METHOD LEASING,

     Defendants.
______________________________

                   Submitted April 15, 2024 – Decided April 24, 2024

                   Before Judges Mawla and Chase.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Sussex County, Docket No. L-0296-04.

                   Bohdan Senysyzn, appellant pro se.
            Donnelly Minter & Kelly, LLC, attorneys for
            respondents (Joseph P. Fiteni and Jason Andrew
            Meisner, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Bohdan Senyszyn appeals from a November 10, 2022 order

denying his Rule 4:50-1 motion for relief from a November 5, 2021 order

confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of plaintiffs David Hook and

Modern Method Development, Inc. We affirm.

      In 2004, plaintiffs sued defendant 1 for: fraud; rescission; conversion;

conversion/forgery; unjust enrichment; and constructive trust, related to

defendant's embezzlement of money and property belonging to plaintiffs in

Hardystown Township. In 2006, the parties entered a settlement agreement

whereby defendant relinquished all ownership to the Hardystown property and

transferred ownership to Hook, except for a parcel known as the "Farmland

Parcel." The parties retained their claims for title to this parcel and ultimately

entered an agreement for binding, non-appealable arbitration in 2010.

      In 2017, plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration and the court entered an

order confirming the validity of the 2006 settlement, the 2010 agreement to

1
   Plaintiffs also sued defendant's wife Kelly Senyszyn, Modern Method Trust,
and Modern Method Leasing, Inc. However, because they have not participated
in this appeal, when we refer to defendant, we intend Bohdan Senyszyn.
                                                                            A-1710-22
                                        2
arbitrate, and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration. An arbitrator

conducted a five-day hearing spanning December 2019 and January 2020, issued

an interim award in favor of plaintiffs on June 10, 2020, and a final award in

favor of plaintiffs on August 19, 2020.

      The arbitrator ordered defendant to transfer ownership of the parcel to

Hook and dismissed all of defendant's claims with prejudice. The award further

directed defendant to pay plaintiffs' legal fees totaling $124,509.50 and directed

defendant and his wife to pay plaintiffs $36,845.39 for the costs of the

arbitration. On November 5, 2021, the trial court entered an order confirming

the arbitration award and entered final judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

      Defendants did not appeal from the November 2021 judgment. Instead,

they filed several motions in the trial court for reconsideration or relief from the

November 2021 judgment. In October 2022, defendant moved for relief from

the judgment under Rule 4:50-1(a), (b), and (c) on grounds of mistake, fraud,

and misrepresentation or misconduct by plaintiffs. He claimed the November

2021 judgment was invalid because it was entered in favor of a non-party,

Aandrei J. Investors, LLC (Aandrei), and the court could not grant relief to a

non-party to the arbitration. Specifically, defendant claimed Hook committed

fraud because defendant reviewed Aandrei's bankruptcy filing and discovered

                                                                              A-1710-22
                                          3
the arbitrator "received payments from Aandrei for non-party and non-arbitral

issues and Hook never made any payments for his share of the arbitration fees. "

Therefore, the court could not order defendant to pay plaintiffs' fees and at least

$42,000 of the fee award was improperly awarded to plaintiffs.

      Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion pointed out defendant's claim

was based on his belief "a prior firm which represented [p]laintiffs in connection

with the arbitration [was] apparently listed as a creditor of [Aandrei]" in its

bankruptcy filing. Plaintiffs noted the fees awarded by the arbitrator were "only

a fraction of the amounts which . . . Hook, [his wife,] and their companies had

to expend to fight [defendant] on multiple fronts." Plaintiffs paid the entire cost

of the arbitration and the fact the judgment ordered defendants to pay them back

was not grounds for relief under Rule 4:50-1.

      The motion judge denied defendant's motion and, in his written findings,

noted the November 2021 order was not entered in favor of Aandrei because it

was not a party. The judge found as follows: "A review of the November 5,

2021 order clearly shows that Aandrei . . . is not mentioned in the order nor in

the [a]rbitration [a]ward. There is nothing to modify." Whether Aandrei "paid

the arbitration fee for its princip[al] David Hook" was not grounds for relief

under Rule 4:50-1 because it "alter[ed] nothing and is entirely irrelevant." The

                                                                             A-1710-22
                                        4
judge reasoned "[t]he appropriate rule is [Rule] 4:49[-]1(b)[,] which requires

motions such as this to be filed [within] []twenty[] days [of] the November 5,

2021 order . . . . That time passed long ago."

                                        I.

      On appeal, defendant argues the motion judge erred because he denied

him "a full and fair hearing on all of the issues raised[] pursuant to Rule 4:50."

He reiterates the argument the November 2021 order granted Aandrei relief as a

non-party and claims the judge's conclusion that Aandrei was not mentioned in

the November 2021 order was mere "semantics." He claims the judge also erred

when he characterized defendant's motion as one for modification. Moreover,

the judge mistakenly relied upon Rule 4:49-1 because defendant's motion was

made post-arbitration and Rule 4:49-1 governs motions for a new trial and there

was no trial here, especially as regards Aandrei.

      At the outset, we can understand why the trial judge believed defendant

was seeking relief pursuant to Rule 4:49-1(b), because if defendant prevailed in

vacating the arbitration fee award, it would necessarily call for a new trial

(arbitration) on the issue. However, defendant never moved for a new trial .

Therefore, the judge's assessment of his claim under Rule 4:49-1(b) was a

mistaken application of law.

                                                                            A-1710-22
                                        5
      Regardless, on appeal our role is to review judgments and orders, not trial

court opinions. Bandler v. Melillo, 443 N.J. Super. 203, 210 (App. Div. 2015).

"[A] party may challenge only the propriety of the judgment entered by the trial

court, not the reasoning underlying the court's decision." Ibid. (citing Do-Wop

Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001)). "It is a commonplace of

appellate review that if the order of the lower tribunal is valid, the fact that it is

predicated upon an incorrect basis will not stand in the way of its affirmance."

Isko v. Plan. Bd. of Livingston, 51 N.J. 162, 175 (1968), abrogated on other

grounds, Com. Realty & Res. Corp. v. First Atl. Props. Co., 122 N.J. 546 (1991).

      A motion for relief under Rule 4:50-1 should be granted sparingly and is

addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose determination will not

be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.         U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v.

Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012). "[A]buse of discretion only arises on

demonstration of 'manifest error or injustice,'" Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6,

20 (2008) (quoting State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 572 (2005)), and occurs when

the trial court's decision is "made without a rational explanation, inexplicably

departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis."

Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 467 (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J.

88, 123 (2007)). Accordingly, our task is not "to decide whether the trial court

                                                                                A-1710-22
                                          6
took the wisest course, or even the better course, since to do so would merely be

to substitute our judgment for that of the lower court. The question is only

whether the trial judge pursued a manifestly unjust course." Gittleman v. Cent.

Jersey Bank & Tr. Co., 103 N.J. Super. 175, 179 (App. Div. 1967), rev'd on

other grounds, 52 N.J. 503 (1968).

      A court may grant relief from a judgment under Rule 4:50-1(a) where a

party demonstrates a mistake that they could not have protected themselves from

during the litigation. DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242, 263 (2009).

However, "neither the court's nor an attorney's error as to the law or the remedy

constitutes mistake under" Rule 4:50-1(a). Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J.

Court Rules, cmt. 5.1.1 on R. 4:50-1(a) (2024). In other words, one cannot argue

a court's judgment was mistaken as a substitute for appeal. Ibid.

      Rule 4:50-1(b) affords a litigant relief from a judgment where "newly

discovered evidence which would probably alter the judgment or order and

which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a

new trial under R[ule] 4:49" exists. Relief from a judgment under Rule 4:50-

1(c) may be granted on the grounds of "fraud, . . . misrepresentation, or other

misconduct of an adverse party."

                                                                           A-1710-22
                                       7
      Pursuant to these principles, we conclude the trial judge correctly found

no grounds for relief under Rule 4:50-1(a), (b) or (c) because the November

2021 judgment simply did not apply to Aandrei. We add that Rule 4:50-1(a) did

not apply because defendant's argument alleged an error in the remedy accorded

by the court, which is not a valid ground for relief under Rule 4:50-1(a). Further,

the fact that Hook may have had an entity in which he was a principal pay the

arbitration fees on his behalf constituted neither newly discovered evidence of

the sort that would entitle defendant relief under Rule 4:50-1(b) nor fraud under

Rule 4:50-1(c). The appellate record contains a billing statement from the

arbitrator sent to plaintiffs' counsel, defendant, and his wife, clearly showing a

payment received from Aandrei. This information was neither new nor hidden

by plaintiffs from defendant during the proceedings.

      Finally, as we noted, the parties agreed the arbitration award would be

final and non-appealable. Given the finality of the arbitration award, relief

under Rule 4:50-1 was not a means by which to undo the award. To the extent

we have not addressed an argument raised on appeal it is because it lacks

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                             A-1710-22
                                        8