ROBERT J. TRIFFIN v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5228-05T25228-05T2
ROBERT J. TRIFFIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEWARK, BRIAN BARNES,
LOUIS HADLEY, NATHANIEL BACON,
EILEEN ABRAHAM, WILLIS BOWMAN
and JANICE GREEN,
Defendants,
and
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________
Argued: May 22, 2007 - Decided June 1, 2007
Before Judges Kestin and Graves.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Essex County, DC-27729-04.
Robert J. Triffin argued the cause pro se.
Jodi L. Rosenberg argued the cause for respondent (Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, attorneys; Ms. Rosenberg, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's assessment of a Rule 1:4-8(b) sanction against him for failure to withdraw, on the request of defendant Wachovia Bank, N.A. (Wachovia), a complaint that did not state a cause of action against that defendant. Although plaintiff informally responded to Wachovia "you have nothing to worry about," the pleading was not withdrawn as requested.
In our initial consideration of the matter, we, in an unpublished opinion dated February 9, 2006, remanded to the trial court for reconsideration and, if sanction was deemed still warranted, an expression of the reasons therefor as required by subsection (d) of the Rule. The trial court then, in an order entered on May 30, 2006, re-imposed the sanction for reasons expressed at length in a written opinion dated April 19, 2006. Plaintiff appeals from that ruling.
We have reviewed the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards. Having fully considered the record along with the reasons stated in Judge Hollar-Gregory's opinion, we discern no misapplication of discretion or error of law on the part of the trial court.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-5228-05T2
June 1, 2007
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.