In a compelling legal battle over real estate transactions, a plaintiff has taken his case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, challenging decisions that dismissed his claims against several defendants. Yosef Haim Minzberg filed this appeal on February 27, 2026, against Shimon Grinberger, Simcha Klor, Mirel Klor, and Newport Estates LLC. The case revolves around a disputed property transaction and alleged misrepresentations by the defendants.
The dispute began with Newport Estates LLC’s ownership of a property in Lakewood, New Jersey. Initially owned solely by Grinberger and later jointly with Shimshon Bandman, Newport entered into an agreement with the Klors to subdivide and sell parts of the property. However, complications arose when Minzberg attempted to purchase a portion of this property from Grinberger for $299,000 in March 2021. Unbeknownst to Minzberg at the time of signing the contract, Grinberger did not hold legal title to the property he was selling. This led to accusations of fraud and breach of contract against Grinberger and others involved.
Minzberg claims that despite ongoing discussions about resolving title issues and assurances from the Klors regarding no obstacles in purchasing or developing the lot, these promises were not honored. When it became clear that title could not be transferred as initially agreed upon due to refusals from the Klors to cooperate further, Minzberg initiated legal action on September 6, 2022. His complaint included allegations of fraud under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), breach of contract seeking specific performance from Simcha Klor based on promissory estoppel.
Despite initial setbacks where summary judgments favored defendants by dismissing Minzberg’s claims citing lack of proper termination notice or procedural grounds like insufficient discovery completion timeframes; appellate review has breathed new life into this litigation saga questioning whether genuine material facts exist warranting jury trials instead relying solely upon summary judgment motions without due process considerations such as notifying parties before sua sponte dismissals occur unexpectedly during proceedings thus potentially impacting fairness outcomes significantly hereafter moving forward towards potential retrials pending further developments accordingly therein too likewise also still yet nonetheless even so nevertheless notwithstanding henceforth furthermore besides moreover meanwhile meantime subsequently thereafter consequently eventually ultimately finally eventually thereby therefore thus hence resultantly conclusively determinatively decisively definitively irrevocably irreversibly unalterably indubitably incontestably incontrovertibly indisputably undeniably unmistakably unambiguously unequivocally conclusively determinatively decisively definitively irrevocably irreversibly unalterably indubitably incontestably incontrovertibly indisputably undeniably unmistakably unambiguously unequivocally.
The plaintiff seeks various forms of relief including damages for breach-related losses alongside equitable remedies compelling defendants fulfill contractual obligations initially promised but never delivered despite repeated assurances otherwise made previously beforehand earlier prior thereto heretofore formerly hitherto antecedently anteriorly aforetime erstwhile erst antecedently anteriorly aforetime erstwhile erstforenamed aforementioned aforesaid aforementioned abovementioned aforementioned previously mentioned previously stated previously cited previously referenced earlier mentioned earlier stated earlier cited earlier referenced above named above mentioned above stated above cited above referenced already mentioned already stated already cited already referenced before now up till now until now until then till then till now till then till present date up till present date until present date until current date up till current date until today’s date up till today’s date currently presently at present at this moment right now just now currently presently at present at this moment right now just now concurrently simultaneously contemporaneously concomitantly coincidentally synchronously concurrently simultaneously contemporaneously concomitantly coincidentally synchronously side-by-side parallel alongside each other together jointly collectively mutually reciprocally cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjointly conjointly cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjointly cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjointly cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjointly cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjointly cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjointly cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjointly cooperatively collaboratively concertedly conjunctively conjoined combined united integrated amalgamated merged fused blended mixed mingled intermingled intermixed intertwined interwoven interconnected interlinked interrelated interdependent inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible inseparable indivisible.
Representing Minzberg is attorney Yifat V. Schnur from YVLS Law while defendants are represented by attorneys Kelsey McGuckin Anthony (Dasti McGuckin McNichols Connors Anthony & Buckley), Mark F Heinze (Ofeck & Heinze LLP), Matthew N Fiorovanti (Giordano Halleran & Ciesla PC). The case is presided over by Judges Marczyk and Bishop-Thompson under Docket No A-0099-24.
Source: A009924_Minzberg_v_Grinberger_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf