01-2-4289 In the Matter of the Denial of Tedesco's Firearms Purchaser ID Card, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Individual appealed the denial of his request for a “second and/or duplicate Firearms Purchaser Identification Card.” The trial judge heard evidence that individual discharged a weapon into a stack of magazine while his wife and sons were in the house. Individual was arrested and admitted he fired the gun because he was depressed and intoxicated. Individual alleged he had resolved his mental health and alcohol issues and completed substance abuse and alcohol treatment but trial judge found that it would be against public health, safety and welfare for him to receive the FPIC. Individual argued the trial judge's findings were against the weight of the evidence. The court found that there was substantial credible evidence in the record to support the trial judge's findings.

36-2-4248 SHT Corp. v. County of Somerset, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Respondent solicited bids for towing and storage work for its county prosecutor's office. Three towing businesses submitted bids with appellant providing the lowest bid. Respondent nonetheless award the contract to the second lowest bid and rejected appellant's bid as nonresponsive to the bid specifications, which included a warning that: “Failure to sign and give all information in the bid may result in the bid being rejected.” Respondent averred that rejection was based on discovery of issues appellant was having and potential removal from a rotation cycle; respondent did not deem it prudent to waive the defects in the bid proposal. On appeal, appellant sought reversal of the law division's order upholding respondent's decision to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. The court affirmed holding appellant was less than candid in its response to the bid questionnaire. The answer “no” to a question, followed by an incomplete account of its history of complaints and pending cases in neighboring municipalities rendered the answer not just nonresponsive, but intentionally evasive. Under these circumstances, respondent was well within its right to reject the bid. Accordingly, the court affirmed.

07-2-4249 Thomas v. Spolnicki, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their fourth complaint on res judicata and the entire controversy doctrine grounds in their dispute over the assets of a limousine company. In the first lawsuit, defendant obtained a default judgment against plaintiffs but the judgment did not show what claims were asserted. Defendant's second lawsuit sought dissolution of the limousine company and an order transferring title of two vehicles to defendant's company. Plaintiff filed counterclaims and demanded an accounting and repayment of loans. Consent orders resolved ownership of the two vehicles and the complaints were dismissed. Plaintiff refiled his claim but that action was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff's fourth lawsuit contended that defendant improperly distributed the company's assets following its dissolution and asserted breach of contract and other claims. Defendant moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds. The court found that three judgments carried a preclusive effect, the default judgment and two consent orders that were final judgments on the issue of title ownership of three vehicles. The court found that plaintiffs' allegations concerning defendant's conduct after the dissolution of the company occurred after the default judgment was entered and that judgment could not have a preclusive effect on claims based on after-occurring events.