Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1785-13T4
04-30-2015
EXECUTIVE ALLIANCE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. QUALITY ASSET RECOVERY, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
Peter Cipparulo, III, attorney for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Nugent and Manahan. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. DC-010214-13. Peter Cipparulo, III, attorney for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Quality Asset Recovery, LLC (QAR), appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Executive Alliance (Executive). We affirm.
Executive is an executive search firm. Executive claimed that, pursuant to a contract between the parties, it referred Andrew Politi to QAR and, due to his hire, it was entitled to a placement fee. The contract provided for a 25% fee based upon the annual base salary for any referred hire. When QAR denied the fee request, Executive filed suit claiming a breach of the contract. The following facts are taken from the record.
Politi utilized the services of Executive in his search for potential employers. When Politi was hired by QAR as the Director of Sales, he did not list on the employment application that he was referred by Executive. Executive did not schedule an interview for Politi nor did it submit his "candidate profile," as referenced in the contract. Politi's resume was submitted to QAR, although QAR claimed at trial that the resume was unsolicited and was submitted to an employee not charged with hiring. Politi's employment with QAR lasted just short of seven months. Several months after the termination of Politi's employment, Executive submitted an invoice to QAR seeking a placement fee in the amount of $12,500 based upon 25% of an annual salary of $50,000. During his employment with QAR, Politi earned $32,000.
Subsequent to a bench trial and after considering the testimonial and documentary evidence, the judge held there was a contract between the parties since Executive referred Politi to QAR and was hired. The court found:
I'm making a finding that [Executive] is entitled to a fee because they did comply with the contract, and the contract was known to the company who hired this fellow.
Whether they hired him because of the recommendation really is not relevant. They hired him. They sent his name in. He worked for six months only. His salary was $32,000 a year.
If I say he's entitled to 25% of the [$32,000], that would be [$8,0000], but he's not. Half of the [$8,000] is six months. It's $4,000. That would be the fee, cut in half. And, that's going to be my decision.
We accord deference to the findings of fact by the court after a non-jury trial, provided the findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-471 (1999); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974); State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). Here, the judge made findings of fact that are supported by the credible evidence in the record. As such, we find no basis to disturb the findings.
An award of damages must be calculated with reasonable certainty and should not be based upon "mere speculation." Caldwell v. Haynes, 136 N.J. 422, 442 (1994). Precision in such calculations is not essential. The trial record need only provide a sufficient "'foundation which will enable the trier of facts to make a fair and reasonable estimate.'" Id. at 436 (quoting Lane v. Oil Delivery, Inc., 216 N.J. Super. 413, 420 (App. Div. 1987)). The court's determination of damages was grounded in the credible evidence adduced during the trial. While, arguably, the damage calculation could be viewed as a "compromise," it was not based upon speculation.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION