SERGEI YAKUSHKO v. FRANKLIN COLLISION INC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

SERGEI YAKUSHKO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRANKLIN COLLISION INC.,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

October 1, 2014

Submitted September 17, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Ashrafi and O'Connor.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Essex County, Docket No. DC-3885-13.

Sergei Yakushko, appellant, pro se.

Franklin Collision Inc., respondent, has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Sergei Yakushko appeals the dismissal of his complaint following a bench trial. Due to various procedural deficiencies, we dismiss the appeal.

According to plaintiff's unopposed brief on appeal, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part alleging that he was the rightful owner of a used car that a friend had conveyed to him a few days before the friend died. Plaintiff claimed that he had obtained title in his name in Pennsylvania, where he lives, and that defendant repair shop refused to turn the car over to him. Defendant contended that $5,000 in repair charges were owed for the car and that the decedent's daughter also claimed ownership. The daughter testified for the defense that, as her father's heir, she was the rightful owner and that the surrogate's court in New York had granted her title to the car. After hearing testimony, the trial judge dismissed plaintiff's claim to ownership as unproven. Plaintiff then filed this appeal.

The deficiencies of the record on appeal are as follows. First, while plaintiff provided a transcript of the trial and a brief, his appendix did not contain the pleadings and, in particular, the complaint and judgment or order from which plaintiff appeals, in violation of Rule2:6-1(a)(1). The failure to include the complaint is not inconsequential, as we do not know what causes of action plaintiff asserted or what relief he sought.

Second, it is unclear in which court this action was heard. Plaintiff s brief indicates the matter was heard in the Small Claims Section of the Special Civil Part. SeeR.6:11. The transcript of the trial suggests, however, that the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000, indicating the matter may have been adjudicated in the Special Civil Part, seeR.6:1-2, although not within the Small Claims Section. One of the issues on appeal is whether the dismissal of the complaint should be vacated because defendant, which plaintiff claims was a corporation, was not represented by counsel at the time of trial, in violation of Rule1:21-1(c). Pursuant to Rule6:11, however, in the Small Claims Section any authorized officer or employee may appear on behalf of a party that is a business entity. At trial, defendant's employee appeared on its behalf. If this matter was adjudicated in the Small Claims Section, plaintiff's argument would be moot.

Third, the two documents plaintiff has provided as his complete appendix for this appeal were not admitted into evidence and no motion was made to settle the record pursuant to R.2:5-5(a). These documents are not properly before us. Middle Dep't Insp. Agency v. Home Ins. Co., 154 N.J. Super.49, 56 (App. Div. 1977), certif. denied. 76 N.J.234 (1978).

As these deficiencies preclude meaningful appellate review of the issues before us, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.1 R.2:9-9; seealsoCherry Hill Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Cred. Corp., 194 N.J. Super. 282 (App. Div. 1984).

Since it has not been raised before us or before the Special Civil Part, we do not decide whether subject matter jurisdiction may also be an issue because the dispute pertains to ownership and interest in property owned by a decedent near the time of his death.

Dismissed.

1 Although the following deficiencies may be insufficient to warrant the dismissal of the appeal, we note the table of contents in plaintiff s brief was devoid of point headings to be argued, see R. 2:6-2(a)(1), and there was no table of citations, see R. 2:6-2(a)(2). Further, when citing the transcript, plaintiff referenced page numbers but failed to include any line numbers. See R. 2:6-8.