GILBERT CASTRO v. NATALYA ZOGRAFOS

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5631-05T15631-05T1

GILBERT CASTRO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs.

NATALYA ZOGRAFOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: February 28, 2007 - Decided March 12, 2007

Before Judges Cuff and Baxter.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division-Special Civil Part, Hudson County, Docket No. SC-3200-05.

Natalya Zografos, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Natalya Zografos appeals from the judgment in the amount of $1530 entered in favor of plaintiff Gilbert Castro. The parties had entered a contract to paint defendant's home. The price was $4250; defendant paid $1500, and plaintiff filed a complaint in the Small Claims Division of the Special Civil Part to recover an additional $1500 for work performed in her home.

Following a trial, the trial judge found that plaintiff performed work for which he had not been paid. The judge also found that the value of that work was $1500.

An appellate court's review of the findings of fact of a judge sitting without a jury is extremely limited. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). If the findings are supported by substantial credible evidence, we must accept those findings. Ibid.

Here, our review of this trial record reveals that the findings of fact by Judge Sarkisian are well-supported by the trial record. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed. In addition, defendant's belated attempt to assert that plaintiff's complaint is barred by his failure to raise this claim in an earlier action filed in Small Claims by her is without merit. The entire controversy doctrine and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses that must be raised at trial, not on appeal. R. 4:5-4; Aikens v. Schmidt, 329 N.J. Super. 335, 340-41 (App. Div. 2000).

 
Affirmed.

The award represents the balance due and court costs.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5631-05T1

March 12, 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.