PAOLA SCHIAVONE v. ANTONIETTA VENUTI DAS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2562-04T52562-04T5

PAOLA SCHIAVONE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTONIETTA VENUTI DAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________

 

Submitted March 29, 2006 - Decided April 13, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Union County, DC-010704-04.

Antonietta Venuti Das, appellant pro se.

Paola Schiavone, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Antonietta Venuti Das appeals from a judgment entered following a bench trial in favor of her sister, Paola Schiavone, in the amount of $8206. We affirm.

In her pro se appellate brief, defendant raises a single argument:

CLAIMANT DISAGREES WITH THE JUDGMENT EXECUTED ON OCTOBER 25, 2004 BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON FALSE TESTIMONY AND, THEREFORE, SHE SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DUE AMOUNT.

Plaintiff's complaint sought $14,999, representing the balance due on money loaned to defendant in various increments over a period of several years. Plaintiff and defendant, both appearing pro se, testified at trial. In addition, plaintiff adduced testimony from another sister and two additional witnesses concerning one portion of the money loaned. At the conclusion of the testimony, Judge Perfilio rendered the following decision:

I listened to the evidence in this case most of the morning, and based upon the proofs that have been submitted, that are also coordinated with the evidence and the testimony by the parties, I am satisfied that both parties agree that the actual amount that was given to the defendant -- the defendant agrees, and the plaintiff has indicated in her checks that the amount given to the defendant was $27,008. I'm also satisfied, based upon the testimony of both parties, that at least $19,500 was paid back. That leaves a balance of $7,508.

The plaintiff has testified that as to the items mentioned in the complaint listing $3000 in 1999, she admits that she got [$]2,100 and then got [$]900 at a later time. And that she has paid this back. Those were cash deliveries to defendant. There's no proof that it was given, except the defendant admits it, and there's no proof that it was given back. So taking those pieces together, I will subtract because neither side has been able to prove that it wasn't paid back or that it was given, because there's no -- there's only cash payments. I will subtract $3,000 from that, leaving a balance of $4,500.

Now there is evidence of $2,000 that was paid for car payments, based upon the testimony of the parties, and I'm satisfied that that has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, based upon the credible testimony, so I'll add back $2,000 with regard to that.

And I'm also satisfied, based upon the testimony of Ms. -- well, the last witness who testified,

. . . .

[t]hat there was another $900 paid, so I'll add that back in. So, I'm satisfied, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the defendant for $7,400, plus the court costs of $54.

Our review of a non-jury determination is quite limited. We will not disturb such findings unless they are "'so wholly insupportable as to result in a denial of justice.'" Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974) (quoting Greenfield v. Dusseault, 60 N.J. Super. 436, 444 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b., 33 N.J. 78 (1960)). "Findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Id. at 484 (citing New Jersey Tpk. Auth. v. Sesselman, 106 N.J. Super. 358 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 54 N.J. 565 (1969)). Judged by these standards, we discern no basis to disturb the judge's thoughtful factual findings, which were supported by the evidence he found to be credible.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2562-04T5

April 13, 2006