This New Jersey appellate decision provides a detailed application of the ABC test for distinguishing independent contractors from employees in the context of claims against a decedent attorney's estate. The case is significant for anyone navigating worker classification disputes, particularly where the claimant operates their own business while providing services to another professional.

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Paralegal's Wage and

Breach of Contract Claims Against Decedent Attorney's Estate, Finding

Plaintiff Was an Independent Contractor Under the ABC Test

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (Appeal from the

Superior Court, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. DC-016113-22)

Date: January 30, 2026 --- 2026 WL 250212

Introduction

Decedent Thomas R. Ashley, an attorney, hired Chris G. Alevras (d/b/a

CGA Associates) to perform paralegal services including brief writing

for his law firm. Alevras claimed a weekly salary of \$1,000,

reimbursement for work-related expenses, and bi-weekly payment by check.

Alevras held a bachelor's degree in business, a master's in finance, and

a law degree. He maintained his own office with "CGA" on the door,

retained his own employees (part-time secretaries), had his own phone

line, bank account, computer and printer, and worked for four or five

other attorneys simultaneously. Thomas provided Alevras with an office

and certain equipment but did not supervise him, did not set his work

hours, did not provide training supplies, uniforms, or fringe benefits,

and did not withhold taxes. In 2021, Thomas stopped paying Alevras

vacation pay after receiving reports that Alevras was answering the

phone "law offices," creating an impression he was affiliated with

Thomas's firm. This case presents important questions about \(1\) whether the order vacating default judgment was.

The Procedural Background

On December 9, 2022, Alevras filed suit against Thomas's estate (through

executor Wilson Brewster Jr.) for breach of contract, violation of the

NJ Wage Payment Law, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and quantum

meruit. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim alleging CGA was an

independent contractor. After unsuccessful mediation, a jury trial was

scheduled for February 14, 2024, then adjourned to March 26, 2024.

Defendant failed to appear; default judgment was entered for \$12,511.

On May 10, 2024, the court granted defendant's motion to vacate default

judgment. A two-day bench trial was conducted on August 22 and 29, 2024.

On September 26, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice,

finding Alevras was an independent contractor. Alevras appealed both the

vacatur order and the dismissal. The question before the appellate court was whether this order could be reviewed at that stage of the litigation.

The Legal Issue at Stake

\(1\) Whether the order vacating default judgment was valid despite

lacking detailed findings of fact; (2) whether it was an abuse of

discretion to grant defendant's motion to vacate; and (3) whether

Alevras was an employee entitled to wage protections or an independent

contractor under the ABC test adopted by the NJ Supreme Court in

Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC.

Arguments Presented to the Court

Alevras (Appellant): Argued the vacatur order was per se invalid

without factual findings, the court abused discretion in vacating

default, and that he was an employee entitled to four weeks' vacation

pay, 200% WPL penalty, and expense reimbursement.

Brewster/Estate (Respondent): Argued excusable neglect justified

vacating default (calendar entry inadvertently deleted), and that

Alevras was clearly an independent contractor operating his own

business, CGA Associates.

The Court's Holding

Affirmed both orders. The appellate court upheld the vacatur of default

judgment and the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

Detailed Analysis and Reasoning

On the vacatur, the court found defense counsel's honest mistake in

deleting the trial date satisfied the excusable neglect standard, and

defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense (ultimately proven at

trial). On the merits, the court applied the three-pronged ABC test from

Hargrove: Prong A (freedom from control)---Thomas did not assert control

over how Alevras performed work, only selected files for him; no set

hours, no exclusivity requirements, no training or benefits provided.

Prong B (outside usual course of business)---CGA's research and

brief-writing services could be performed anywhere. Prong C

(independently established trade)---Alevras operated CGA Associates with

its own office, employees, phone line, bank account, and multiple

attorney clients; his business would survive termination of the

relationship with Thomas. The court found all three prongs satisfied and

affirmed dismissal.

This reasoning demonstrates the court's careful application of precedent to distinguish between different legal doctrines. The analysis provides clarity on how courts should interpret similar statutes and apply appellate procedure rules.

Practical Significance for Legal Practitioners

This decision is important for practitioners because it clarifies on the vacatur, the court found. Understanding the court's reasoning helps attorneys avoid procedural pitfalls and develop effective litigation strategies.

Key practice points include:

• The importance of carefully analyzing the specific language and scope of statutory provisions
• How appellate jurisdiction depends on the type of legal protection or immunity being asserted
• The procedural consequences of mischaracterizing the nature of a defense

Practitioners should carefully consider how this holding applies to their own cases and adjust their litigation approaches accordingly.

This case summary is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice. Practitioners should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific situations.

Need Legal Guidance on a Similar Issue?

Understanding how courts have ruled on cases like this one can be critical to your legal strategy. Contact Riefkohl Law for experienced counsel on trust law, estate planning, and litigation matters in Puerto Rico.

Schedule a Free Consultation →

Related resources: Puerto Rico Trust Law Guide | Case Analysis Blog | Legal Resources