A New Jersey appeals court has upheld a jury verdict dismissing legal malpractice claims over a lawyer's representation of homeowners in a zoning dispute.

The appeals court said on May 7 that the jury correctly rejected claims by Carla Sadej against attorney Barry Guaglardi and his firm, Arturi, D'Argenio, Guaglardi & Meliti of Rochelle Park. Sadej sued Guaglardi and the firm over services they provided in a dispute with the Borough of Seaside Park over the scope of improvements they made to their eight-bedroom Victorian home.

Sadej claimed in the malpractice suit that Guaglardi and his firm failed to file a timely tort claim notice against Seaside Park for a counterclaim against the town for promissory estoppel; failed to timely assert claims against municipal officials for declaratory judgment, estoppel and deprivation of property rights under federal civil rights law; and failed to assert claims against Seaside Park and its officials for inverse condemnation and deprivation of property rights under the constitutions of the United States and New Jersey.

The jury found the defendants had deviated from the acceptable standard of care by not timely filing affirmative claims against Seaside Park or its officials for municipal estoppel, federal civil rights violations and violation of the Sadejs' property rights under the state constitution. But the jury found the deviations did not proximately cause the Sadejs to suffer damages.

Carla Sadej and her husband, Jesse, filed plans for improvements to their home with Seaside Park in 2001, including expanding the house and garage and constructing an in-ground pool. In April 2002, Seaside Park issued a stop-work order, claiming the construction did not conform to the plans on file. And, in May 2002, Seaside Park filed a complaint in Superior Court, claiming the Sadejs' substantially increased the scope, intensity, use and character of the improvements. The suit claimed the project may violate local setback, height, area and lot coverage regulations, and attempted to stop any further construction and to dismantle any improvements made without approval.

About a year after he was retained, Guaglardi filed an answer to Seaside Park's complaint and asserted defenses of promissory and equitable estoppel. He also filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, promissory estoppel and fraud but did not file a Tort Claims Act notice.

Seaside Park filed an answer to the counterclaim, asserting defenses that included the two-year statute of limitations and the Sadejs' failure to file a tort claims notice.

Ultimately the Sadejs were granted summary judgment on the building coverage issue, because they had relied in good faith on building permit and zoning approvals granted by Seaside Park. Later, the Sadejs retained a new attorney to represent them when their claim for malicious abuse of process was tried before a jury. At the conclusion of trial, but before the jury announced a verdict, the Sadejs accepted a settlement of $125,000 from Seaside Park.

When the malpractice suit went to trial in August 2016 before Superior Court Judge Rachelle Harz in Bergen County, the Sadejs were divorced and Carla Sadej had been awarded the house. Jesse Sadej did not participate in the appeal.

On appeal before Appellate Division Judges Marie Simonelli, Mary Gibbons Whipple and Lisa Firko, Carla Sadej claimed that, if Guaglardi had filed a timely tort claim notice on the affirmative promissory estoppel claim, the underlying action would have settled for more than $125,000. But Sadej failed to make that showing, the appeals court said.

In addition, the appeals court said, construction on the improvements was only barred for seven days, and the Sadejs were not compelled to remove any of the improvements they made to the property. They also were not deprived of the use of the house, as planned, and they were able to refinance the home for $1.2 million, the appeals court said.

Sadej also claimed on appeal that Harz erred in charging the jury on the issue of taking without compensation, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Sadej said she should be compensated for five years of lost rent and loss of use of the property because she was living in peril of having to dismantle the construction. But the jury charge that Harz issued was one for partial, temporary taking. On appeal, Sadej claimed the jury charge misstated the law and also erred in denying a motion for a new trial on that basis. But the appeals court said Sadej waived the right to challenge the charge on appeal because she did not object to it during trial. And even if the right were not waived, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief because she failed to demonstrate the jury charge was plain error, the appeals court judges said.

Mitchell Seidman of Seidman & Pincus in Hasbrouck Heights, who represented Carla Sadej at the Appellate Division, did not return a call about the ruling.

Walter Kawalec III of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin in Mount Laurel, representing Guaglardi and his firm, declined to comment about the ruling.