A recent appellate decision has overturned a lower court’s damages award in a dispute over compensation for building damage caused by a commercial vehicle, raising questions about how courts should calculate losses when parties disagree on repair costs. The ruling affects both property owners and businesses involved in accidents resulting in structural harm.
Long Valley Realty Holding, LLC filed an appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, against G & E Services, LLC and its employee Jake Kaniszeweski after the Law Division of Passaic County awarded $3,650 in damages on May 7, 2025. The appeal was submitted January 21, 2026 and decided March 13, 2026.
The dispute began after Long Valley Realty Holding claimed that its building was struck by a box truck owned by G & E Services and driven by Kaniszeweski on September 21, 2022. The defendants conceded liability for the accident but contested the amount of damages owed. At trial, the issue focused solely on determining appropriate compensation for repairs to the building’s exterior.
During the bench trial, Long Valley Realty presented testimony from two experts: Glenn Brackmann, an engineering expert, and Chuck Anania, a licensed home improvement contractor. Brackmann described multiple areas of visible damage linked to the truck impact—including damage to bollards, sidewalks, brickwork near the southwest corner of the building, roof sections, and trim rotation—while distinguishing other pre-existing or unrelated issues. Anania estimated it would cost $112,000 to repair all damage attributed to the collision and explained that this figure covered replacing parts of the mansard roof (which he said could not be matched with current materials), repairing facade sections impacted by the crash, fixing concrete work at the front of the building, restoring brick veneer around one corner, addressing structural issues behind facades, and replacing or investigating interior ceiling materials potentially containing lead paint or asbestos.
Anania acknowledged during testimony that some elements—such as portions of the roof—were already near their end-of-life before the incident but maintained his estimate was based only on repairs needed due to truck-related damage as outlined in Brackmann’s report. Both experts’ reports were admitted into evidence without objection from either party.
After hearing testimony from plaintiff’s witnesses (the defense did not present any witnesses or evidence), the trial judge expressed concern about lack of itemization within plaintiff’s $112,000 estimate and noted disagreement between experts regarding which specific damages resulted directly from the accident. The judge stated it would be difficult “to sift through this and make a determination as to what” award was justified given these uncertainties.
Despite indicating it would only consider items formally entered into evidence during trial—and not documents filed electronically outside those proceedings—the court ultimately referenced two estimates: plaintiff’s $112,000 figure and a $3,650 estimate included with defendant’s Uniform Arbitration Statement of Facts but never introduced at trial. In written findings issued April 29 and formalized May 7, 2025, judgment was entered for $3,650 based on what the court described as having to choose between “only two remediation estimates . . . in the record.” The judge compared this process to “professional baseball salary arbitration,” conceding that “a higher damage amount [was] probably warranted” but concluding that neither side had provided sufficient breakdowns for alternative calculations.
On appeal, Long Valley Realty argued that relying on an unadmitted defense estimate constituted reversible error because it violated evidentiary standards requiring all supporting documentation be properly presented at trial. The appellate panel agreed with this argument after reviewing legal precedents governing compensatory damages awards. Citing established case law—including Paolicelli v. Wojciechowski (1975) and Totaro v. Lane (2007)—the opinion emphasized that while courts must make reasonable estimates where exact amounts are uncertain due to circumstances beyond parties’ control (such as pre-existing conditions), they cannot base awards on information not anchored in credible evidence from trial records.
The appellate judges found that neither party had presented alternative repair estimates during proceedings; thus referencing defendant’s $3,650 figure was improper under procedural rules. They further criticized reducing possible outcomes to binary choices unsupported by law or fact-finding methodology: “This methodology … constituted error as a matter of law.” As such,”[t]his alone warrants vacating the judgment.”
The panel ordered that judgment be vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with their decision—directing any future calculation of damages be limited strictly to evidence properly introduced during new hearings.
Attorneys representing Long Valley Realty were Jeffrey M. Advokat of Advokat & Rosenberg; attorneys for G & E Services were Neil Chessin of Goodman Galluccio and Chessin. The case is identified as Docket No. A-2784-24.
