Yetman v. Cavanagh

Williams, PJ.

To the extent that this Appellate Division can discern the issues on this appeal from a patchy record and a murky brief,1 the defendant, Robert D. Cavanagh (“Cavanagh”), claims that the trial judge erred: (1) in failing to dismiss the action, or at least to continue the bench trial, in light of a pending superior court appeal of an administrative decision regarding the home-improvement-contractor registration of the plaintiff, Bill Yetman (‘Yetman’’); and (2) excluding the administrative decision from evidence at trial, but then allowing Yetman to argue it. We find no error and…