In Kovacs v. Wood Duck Pond Neighborhood Condo. Ass’n, Inc., the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s finding that summary judgment was appropriate where the plaintiff failed to identify sufficient evidence to support his claims. 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2177 (September 18, 2014). 

By way of background, Plaintiff owns a condominium unit located on Wood Duck Pond Road and is thus a member of the Defendant Association. In 2012, Plaintiff requested that the Association fix several issues in his unit, including a water infiltration problem. However, the Association maintained that it was not responsible for such repairs. 

In 2013, after Plaintiff refused to allow an engineering firm hired by the Defendant in his unit to undertake any necessary repairs, the Defendant filed suit. Ultimately, that matter was settled, and the parties agreed that Plaintiff had completed all necessary repairs.

Almost 7 years later, in 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Association and its Board members alleging, among other things, that the Association’s failure to make repairs caused extensive damage to his unit.

The trial court granted Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred, and that Plaintiff failed to provide any competent evidence of the alleged damage to defend against a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that discovery was incomplete. 

Regardless of the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s appeal, the Appellate Court agreed that summary judgment in this matter was not premature, despite the fact that discovery was not complete at the time summary judgment was entered. The Court concluded that a proper defense against a summary judgment motion must consist of competent evidential materials, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. 

In upholding the trial court, the Court found that Plaintiff did not provide any factual evidence beyond his own conjecture and belief to support his claims that Defendants’ failure to make repairs caused damage to his unit. The Court further explained that mere feelings and bare conclusions, without factual support, will not be enough to defend a summary judgment motion. 

A plaintiff asserting claims against a condominium association for damage to the unit as a result of a failure to make repairs must be sure to substantiate those claims with specific, factual evidence. Mere speculation and belief that the condominium association was responsible for or could have contributed to such damage is not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Thus, a plaintiff must support their claims with competent evidence, which could include deposition testimony, admissions of the parties, and affidavits recounting the factual bases for the claim.