DISTRIBUTOR LABEL PRODUCTS, INC. v. FLEET NATIONAL BANK, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6676-04T36676-04T3

DISTRIBUTOR LABEL PRODUCTS, INC.

d/b/a CERTIFIED DATA PRODUCTS,

Plaintiff-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant,

v.

FLEET NATIONAL BANK, as

successor in interest to

SUMMIT BANK; MICHAEL ALESSANDRINI,

individually, and d/b/a DYNAMIC

DATA SOLUTIONS, MADELYN M.

ALESSANDRINI, CLIFFORD SNOW,

COMPLETE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.,

MINTZ ROSENFELD & COMPANY, LLC, and

MICHAEL GOULD, C.P.A.,

Defendants,

and

PNC BANK, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent,

_____________________________________

MINTZ ROSENFELD & COMPANY, LLC,

and MICHAEL GOULD, C.P.A.,

Defendants-Third-Party

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT R. RICCIARDI,

Third-Party Defendant.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Argued September 19, 2006 - Decided October 2, 2006

Before Judges Coburn, Axelrad and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Somerset County, SOM-L-1652-02.

Gregg S. Sodini argued the cause for appellant/

cross-respondent (Sodini & Spina, attorneys;

Mr. Sodini, on the brief).

John J. Petriello argued the cause for

respondent/cross-appellant (Levy, Ehrlich &

Petriello, attorneys; Mr. Petriello, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff obtained partial summary judgment against defendant PNC Bank ("PNC") for over $120,000. At PNC's request, the trial court certified the judgment as final. PNC appealed, and plaintiff cross-appealed contending that the order was interlocutory and should not have been certified as final.

The case arose after plaintiff's bookkeeper, using a variety of schemes, embezzled thousands of dollars. Plaintiff alleged that PNC was responsible for the losses it suffered under the Uniform Commercial Code and the common law doctrines of negligence and breach of contract.

The trial court's decisions on liability and its certification of finality with respect to the order for partial summary judgment were issued in conclusory fashion. Nowhere do the opinions explain the legal basis of liability, or resolve the claims of negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Uniform Commercial Code. Nor do they resolve application of the proffered defenses.

Furthermore, the record shows that the trial court certified the order as final for the sole reason of allowing PNC to pursue an immediate appeal. The applicable rule, R. 4:42-2, does not allow for such certification here because PNC is not a creditor seeking to enforce payment under the judgment; it is the debtor seeking to challenge the merits of a grant of summary judgment. The course followed was inconsistent with Tradesoft Technologies, Inc. v. Franklin Mutual Insurance Co., Inc., 329 N.J. Super. 137, 141 (App. Div. 2000). Therefore, we reverse the order certifying the partial summary judgment as final.

 
As noted, the trial court's attempts at resolving the dispute failed to address the necessary issues. Consequently, we are satisfied that reconsideration of the summary judgment motions of both sides is required. We were advised at argument that while the appeal was pending the case was re-assigned and a lengthy trial occurred before Judge Fred H. Kumpf. Because of his familiarity with the case, we remand it to him for such proceedings as may be necessary to reach a final resolution of all issues.

Reversed and remanded.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6676-04T3

October 2, 2006