were told why they should not let Einstein spend the night. (V. Dougan Depo. at 15:12-20; T. Dougan Depo. at 16:13-25.) Furthermore, despite Coviello’s -warning and Plaintiffs’ initial reluctance, they ultimately permitted Einstein to stay the night because Defendants’ urged them to do so based on their prior experiences and because Einstein had not exhibited any signs of aggression in Plaintiffs’ presence. (V. Dougan Depo. at 31:7-32:19.) Even accepting that Plaintiffs were warned by the breeder not to permit a sleep-over, they were given no reason for this, and the warning was ignored solely as a result of Defendants’ representations. At most, this could constitute simple negligence, which is not sufficient to survive summary judgment. See Pingaro, 322 N.J.Super. at 498, 731 A.2d 523 (<HOLDING>), Budai, 212 N.J.Super. at 526, 515 A.2d 822
holding that there is no cutpa violation when the sole basis of the claim is the defendants negligence and the jury determines that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent holding it was error to submit a fraud claim to the jury partly because there was no principle of law establishing an obligation of disclosure holding that where there is no essential conflict as to the facts and the evidence the trial court was correct in refusing to submit the theory of strict liability to the jury holding that there is no basis in law to submit the issue of plaintiffs negligence to the jury when there was no evidence that plaintiff incited the dog or voluntarily or unreasonably exposed herself to a known risk holding that there was no prejudice to a plaintiff and thus no basis for sanctions when evidence believed to be lost was found and promptly turned over to the plaintiff