HADASSA AZIZI v. ROBERT J. PHILLIPS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2975-05T12975-05T1

HADASSA AZIZI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT J. PHILLIPS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Argued November 13, 2006 - Decided December 7, 2006

Before Judges S.L. Reisner and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Camden County, Docket No. DC-11850-05.

Robert J. Phillips, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Respondent did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Robert J. Phillips appeals from entry of judgment against him in a Special Civil Part matter instituted by plaintiff Hadassa Azizi. The plaintiff testified that she had retained defendant to perform a handwriting analysis and to appear in New York to testify in court with respect to an action brought against her. On the day of the trial in New York, defendant here failed to appear to testify on plaintiff's behalf and judgment was entered against her. In this matter, plaintiff sought to recover that portion of the $5000 fee which represented trial testimony.

The judge found plaintiff to be a credible witness and concluded that defendant was not forthcoming and not credible. Because $750 had been charged for the report, the judge entered a judgment against defendant in the amount of $4250. A motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground that the issues raised therein had already been determined and that no new evidence had been submitted.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:

IT WAS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT TO SERVE INADEQUATE NOTICE OF SUIT AND TO BASE HER CASE IN COURT ON MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FACT; AND IT WAS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION FOR THE JUDGE TO DENY RELIEF TO DEFENDANT/APPELLANT AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY AND CONTINUANCE, TO DENY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND IN RENDERING HIS DECISION TO RELY ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND ON DOCUMENTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN AUTHENTICATED, PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE OR ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.

A. RIGHT TO NOTICE OF SUIT AND DISCOVERY.

B. RIGHT TO CONTINUANCE.

C. RIGHT TO TRUTHFULNESS IN RESPONDENT AT HEARING.

D. RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.

E. RIGHT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO RECONSIDERATION.

After carefully reviewing the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by defendant, we conclude that the issues presented by defendant are without sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in this opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial judge in his oral opinion delivered on November 29, 2005. The findings and conclusions of the judge are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). We add the following.

Notice of suit is provided by the Clerk of Court pursuant to court rules and procedures, not by the plaintiff. R. 6:2-1, -2. New Jersey is a notice-pleading state, which means that only a short, concise statement of the claim need be given in the complaint. See Velop, Inc. v. Kaplan, 301 N.J. Super. 32, 56 (App. Div. 1997), appeal dismissed, 153 N.J. 45 (1998); R. 4:5-7. The complaint here met these requirements. Discovery was available before trial under the Rules of Court, R. 6:4-3 and -4. The record does not demonstrate that defendant exercised his right to secure discovery prior to his appearance on the day set for trial.

The request to adjourn a trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. See State v. Rodriguez, 254 N.J. Super. 339, 345-46 (App. Div. 1992). We find no abuse of discretion here where defendant came unprepared for trial, did not seek a continuance in advance, and sought no discovery prior to trial.

The central issue in this matter was the credibility of the parties. The trial judge's credibility findings are entitled to particular deference on appeal because credibility findings "are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999). We find no basis to disturb the credibility determinations made by the trial judge.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2975-05T1

December 7, 2006