SHIH-LIANG CHEN v. LAURENCE H. OLIVE, ESQ.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2588-05T12588-05T1

SHIH-LIANG CHEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAURENCE H. OLIVE, ESQ.,

Defendant-Respondent.

___________________________________

 

Argued: November 8, 2006 - Decided November 28, 2006

Before Judges Axelrad and R.B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, L-1950-03.

Shih-Liang Chen, appellant, filed a pro se brief.

Kathleen J. Devlin argued the cause for respondent (Scarinci & Hollenbeck, attorneys; Andrew L. Indeck, of counsel and on the brief; Ms. Devlin, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Shih-Liang Chen appeals from the Law Division's December 13, 2005 order enforcing the settlement of his malpractice claim against his former attorney, defendant Laurence H. Olive, Esquire and dismissing the litigation with prejudice against Olive. On motion filed by defendant to enforce the settlement and cross-motion by plaintiff's attorney, John Burley, to enforce the settlement and be relieved as counsel, Judge Merkelbach heard the testimony of plaintiff, defendant, and a representative of defendant's malpractice insurance carrier. The court discredited the testimony of plaintiff and found he gave Burley written authorization to settle the malpractice claim against defendant for the $200,000 policy limit after being apprised of defendant's limited assets and unavailability of other insurance coverage, and with full knowledge of the consequences of the settlement. The court was satisfied, based on its assessment of plaintiff, defendant's testimony as to plaintiff's prior pattern of conduct in the underlying litigation, and its review of the documentary evidence, that there was no merit to plaintiff's claims of lack of comprehension and due process resulting from a language barrier and his lack of sophistication.

On appeal, plaintiff contends the court erred in denying his request for an adjournment of the hearing to hire new counsel as Burley no longer represented his interests. Plaintiff contended he had not been timely advised of the hearing date and again asserts a professed lack of comprehension and sophistication due to a language barrier. We are satisfied plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons articulated by Judge Merkelbach in his oral decision of December 13, 2005. The court made express credibility assessments and detailed findings of fact, all of which were well supported in the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2588-05T1

November 28, 2006