Melissa Schwartz v. Michael Kopelman, Esq.

── Melissa Schwartz v. Michael Kopelman, Esq. ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0795-23 A-1665-23 MELISSA SCHWARTZ and STEVEN SCHWARTZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICHAEL KOPELMAN, ESQ., and CAROL RACHESKY, a/k/a CAROL REINFELD, a/k/a CAROL WOLFE, Defendants, and 1266 APARTMENT CORP., Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________ Argued March 12, 2026 – Decided May 21, 2026 Before Judges Marczyk, Bishop-Thompson and Puglisi. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-0128-20.  Thomas A. Gentile argued the cause for appellants (Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, attorneys; Thomas A. Gentile, on the briefs). Matthew Z. Earle argued the cause for respondent 1266 Apartment Corp. (Kates Nussman Ellis Earle & Landolfi LLP, attorneys; Cara Landolfi and Matthew Z. Earle, on the brief). PER CURIAM This consolidated appeal involves a dispute between defendant 1266 Apartment Corp. (Corporation) and two shareholders, plaintiffs Melissa and Steven Schwartz.1 Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's November 3, 2023 order, which modified previous orders dated August 23, 2023, and September 26, 2023, granting the Corporation summary judgment on its counterclaims against plaintiffs, terminating their lease, ejecting them from their apartment, terminating their shares of the unit, and allowing the Corporation to sell their shares and utilize the sale proceeds. Plaintiffs also challenge the court's award of attorneys' fees. Following our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we affirm. 1 Because plaintiffs share a last name, we will refer to them by their first names when referencing them individually. We intend no disrespect. A-0795-23 2  I. The Corporation is a residential housing cooperative association that owns and operates six buildings containing 1,266 units. Plaintiffs have resided in apartment 2908, located in building six, for approximately twenty-three years. Plaintiffs are shareholders of the Corporation. The Corporation is governed by its bylaws, and pursuant to those bylaws, the Board of Directors (Board) manages and controls the Corporation. The bylaws also authorize the Board to adopt and amend rules for the "health, safety[,] and convenience of the shareholders and any other occupants" that would be binding upon all the Corporation's residents. These rules, known as House Rules and Regulations (House Rules), include a code of conduct applicable to the residents, providing, in pertinent part: "[p]ublic halls must not be obstructed or used for any purpose other than access to apartments"; and "[n]o one shall be permitted to use more than two . . . washers or two . . . dryers at one time." The House Rules also state: "[m]anagement, after proper written notice, shall be permitted entry to any apartment at a reasonable hour to determine whether there has been damage to or from the resident's apartment." The House Rules further provide