07-2-8288 Zochowski v. Zochowski, App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) In this lengthy dispute between two brothers regarding the distribution of a forfeited deposit received in conjunction with the aborted sale of real estate owned by their closely held corporation and the alleged use by one brother of corporate assets to pay his personal attorneys, which exasperated the previous judge (now retired) and the present judge to whom the matter was assigned, and which was complicated by the inadvertent administrative dismissal of the matter and the archival of the physical file, defendants T. Robert Zochowski and Zachmar, Inc., appealed from the orders issued by the present judge denying various relief and directing defendants to file a new law suit. The panel reversed, concluding that it could not agree that the appropriate remedy under the circumstances was to direct the parties to dismiss the action and start anew and that the court should have required the parties to submit copies of all missing documents to the court and scheduled the previously ordered plenary hearing as soon as possible to bring closure to the matter, instead of “starting from scratch” as the parties had already had the full opportunity to which they were entitled for pre-trial discovery and motions and dismissing the action on the court’s own motion so that they could start all over—after more than 10 years of waiting to be heard in court—was an abuse of the court’s discretion.
11-2- 8261 J. Smentkowski, Inc. v. Lacey Twp., App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Defendant Lacey Township solicited public bids for a solid waste and recycling collection contract with options for 18 months, 42 months and 66 months contract terms. Sealed bids were originally due on April 1, 2014. For reasons unexplained by the record, the township issued a revised bid package, extending the term for each contract option by one month. Defendant Meadowbrook Industries, LLC submitted the lowest bid for the 19-month term. Although it was the lowest bidder on the longer-term options, plaintiff J. Smentkowski Inc., was the second lowest bidder for the 19-month term, submitting a bid of $2,164,872.92. Although plaintiff objected to Meadowbrook’s bid alleging various material defects, the township awarded the 19-month contract to Meadowbrook. Plaintiff filed a verified complaint seeking temporary injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleged that Meadowbrook’s bid included a non-responsive bid bond, a conditional consent of surety and a non-responsive equipment questionnaire. Plaintiff asserted that the township was required to reject Meadowbrook’s bid and its award of the contract to Meadowbrook was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. Plaintiff ultimately asked the court to vacate the contract award and declare plaintiff to be the lowest responsible bidder. The court found that the obligations had not changed simply because the township’s specifications added an additional month to the contract. The judge determined there was no suggestion of fraud, bad faith, or collusion that would require the court to set aside the bid award to the low bidder. The judge found that the surety bond was conditioned only upon the requirements cited in N.J.S.A. 40A:11-24, which are applicable to all contracts publicly bid pursuant to the Local Public Contracts Law. The judge rejected plaintiff’s claim that Meadowbrook’s answers rendered the questionnaire materially defective. The alleged defects plaintiff cited did not rise to the level of materiality. The appellate panel affirmed the court’s order denying plaintiff’s request for temporary restraints and dismissing its complaint.
