Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4362-12T4
05-13-2014
REFCO, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABDUL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., and ABDUL QUDDOOS, Defendants-Respondents.
Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Eric A. Inglis, of counsel and on the brief). Hanlon Dunn & Robertson, attorneys for respondents (Gerard E. Hanlon, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-207-11.
Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Eric A. Inglis, of counsel and on the brief).
Hanlon Dunn & Robertson, attorneys for respondents (Gerard E. Hanlon, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Refco, LLC, obtained summary judgment on its contractual claim for money due from defendant Abdul Telecommunications, Inc. (ATI), but was denied relief against the individual defendant Abdul Quddoos; Refco appeals that latter ruling. We agree with the trial judge's determination that Refco's opposition to Quddoos's summary judgment motion was conclusory and unsupported by sworn allegations uttered by an individual with personal knowledge. We, therefore, affirm.
The record demonstrates that Refco and ATI entered into a contract on September 20, 2007, whereby Refco endeavored to obtain a federal excise tax refund for ATI in exchange for its promise to compensate Refco in the amount of twenty-five percent of the recovery. Pursuant to Refco's efforts, ATI obtained a tax refund of $2,548,568.80, and on May 12, 2010, Refco sent ATI an invoice for $637,142.20. The following month, ATI sent Refco a $254,856.88 payment, but refused to remit the balance.
Refco commenced this action against ATI for the balance due on its invoice; Refco also asserted fraud and other similar causes of action and demanded relief against Quddoos, the president of ATI. Plaintiff obtained summary judgment against ATI in the amount of $382,285.32. No appeal of that determination has been filed by ATI. Quddoos obtained summary judgment dismissing the claims against him. Refco appeals that aspect of the final judgment, arguing, in a single point:
THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW A JURY TO INFER THAT DEFENDANT ABDUL QUDDOOS COULD BE FOUND INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE FOR THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN HIS FAVOR.We find insufficient merit in this argument to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following brief comments.
In responding to defendants' summary judgment motion, Refco never provided any factual information that would support its theory that the corporate form should be disregarded in this instance. This omission is glaringly reflected in the appeal brief, where Refco argues that at the time the contract was executed, Quddoos had "a number of conversations with Richard Capparelli of Refco" in which he "advised Mr. Capparelli of [his] intent to drain his company of assets, to possibly transfer the corporate assets of [ATI] overseas, and to take such steps if faced with a lawsuit by Refco." In support of this argument, Refco cites only to the complaint it filed in the trial court. Refco's bare allegations — without factual support in an affidavit or certification and without reference to other sworn materials — were insufficient to defeat defendants' summary judgment motion. See Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 440-41 (2005); Petersen v. Twp. of Raritan, 418 N.J. Super. 125, 132 (App. Div. 2011). Consequently, we conclude that the trial judge properly disposed of Refco's claims for relief against Quddoos.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF APPELLATE DIVIDION