Louis Fitzig v. Quick Cooling & Heating, LLC

── Louis Fitzig v. Quick Cooling & Heating, LLC ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3336-24 LOUIS FITZIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUICK COOLING & HEATING, LLC, Defendant-Respondent. ____________________________ Argued May 6, 2026 – Decided May 22, 2026 Before Judges Gilson and Perez Friscia. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. SC-000010-25. Louis Fitzig, appellant, argued the cause on appellant's behalf. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM Plaintiff Louis Fitzig appeals from the April 3, 2025 Special Civil Part judgment dismissing his breach of contract claim against defendant Quick Cooling & Heating, LLC with prejudice following a bench trial.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. We recite only the facts pertinent to the issues on appeal. Plaintiff owned a residential rental property (the property) in New Jersey but resided out of state. After plaintiff's tenant advised him the property's air conditioning (AC) unit was not working, plaintiff contacted defendant to assess the AC system. On June 18, 2018, the parties entered into a contract for defendant to replace plaintiff's AC unit at the property. Immediately thereafter, a dispute arose as to defendant's replacement of the unit. Over six years later, on January 3, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging breach of contract claim. Plaintiff asserts the parties agreed that "[d]efendant was hired to replace a [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)] system at [p]laintiff's home with [the] same or [a] like- kind system." He alleged damages of $5,000 because "[d]efendant installed an[] incorrect AC unit[,] which prevented heat for the home and required replacement." 1 Defendant failed to file a responsive brief to this appeal. A-3336-24 2  The trial court presided over a two-day trial. On February 13, 2025, plaintiff testified that he spoke with defendant's owner, Amir Karni, in June 2018. Plaintiff informed Karni the AC unit at the property was a "Carrier" AC system, but Karni advised that the company no longer made the same equipment. Plaintiff asked Karni for "the same or like[-]kind [AC] equipment." After Karni assessed the AC system at the property, he advised plaintiff the cost of "like[- ]kind equipment" would be $4,900. Plaintiff maintained it was known that the property was "all electric." Plaintiff recalled discussing different "brands" with Karni and that it was understood that plaintiff only agreed to a replacement unit "on the same level." Plaintiff paid defendant a $2,000 deposit, using his American Express card. After defendant notified plaintiff that the work was completed the same day, plaintiff received a bill for the remaining $2,900. Plaintiff learned from his tenant that the unit installed was manufactured by "Evcon," which plaintiff believed was a "bottom of the barrel" brand. Plaintiff claimed defendant acknowledged the new AC unit was not of a similar kind to the Carrier unit. While plaintiff admitted never working in HVAC installation, he asserted that "numerous experts" advised him