Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex A-6307-08T2

We won the appeal. The Appellate division determined that the the trial level made a mistake by dismissing the complaint on the summary judgment motion filed by the dealership and their lawyers.


A jury believing plaintiff’s description of the events could find that agents of Triplex sold a new car to plaintiff indirectly, through his parents who were acting as his agents, by falsely advertising the value of a trade-in and falsely promising to recast the loan if he paid the loan for eight months. The jurors could also find that as a consequence of Triplex’s false pretense and promise, plaintiff sustained an ascertainable loss equivalent to the difference between the $8000 credit advertised by Triplex and the value Triplex gave for the 1999 Ford. On these facts Triplex is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law simply because plaintiff did not sign the loan agreement and was not legally obligated to pay the amount due. SeeBrill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995) (discussing the showing required for a grant of summary judgment).

Any successful appeal is a very impressive task since I have heard that only one in ten appeals are successful!! Nonetheless the court did the right thing in permitting the plaintiff to pursue his claim against the dealership. We are awaiting a trial date for this matter in Camden County Superior Court.

Jonathan Rudnick The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick 788 Shrewsbury Avenue Tinton Falls, NJ 07724