ANTHONY F. TRUFOLO, JR v. SANDRA J. BUCOSSI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0675-15T1


ANTHONY F. TRUFOLO, JR.,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SANDRA J. BUCOSSI, Individually
and as Trustee of the Anne. M.
Trufolo Living Trust, and PATRICIA
A. WARRICK, Individually,

     Defendants-Respondents.
____________________________________________

              Submitted December 4, 2017 – Decided May 10, 2018

              Before Judges Messano and O'Connor.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket
              No. C-000030-13.

              Joshua L. Thomas, attorney for appellant.

              Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys for
              respondent Sandra J. Bucossi (Joseph J.
              Colao, Jr. and Janie Byalik, of counsel and
              on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Plaintiff Anthony F. Trufolo, Jr., appeals from a July 29,

2015 judgment dismissing his verified complaint against
defendant Sandra J. Bucossi, both individually and as trustee of

the Anne M. Trufolo Living Trust (trust), and defendant Patricia

Warrick.   We affirm.

    Plaintiff and defendants are the children of Anne M.

Trufolo (decedent) and Anthony Trufolo, Sr. (Trufolo Sr.).

Before her death in 1998, the decedent created a living trust

for the benefit of Trufolo Sr. during his lifetime.   The trust

named Bucossi as trustee and the children as contingent

beneficiaries; Trufolo Sr. died in 2015.   The sole assets of the

trust were two professional buildings.

    In 2013, plaintiff filed a verified complaint alleging

that, as trustee, Bucossi mismanaged, misappropriated and

converted trust funds.   Relevant to the issues on appeal,

plaintiff sought an accounting of the trust from 1998 through

2012, as well as Bucossi’s removal as trustee.   At the

conclusion of plaintiff’s case, the court granted defendants’

motion for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:37-2(b),

and subsequently entered the July 29, 2015 judgment from which

plaintiff appeals.

    On appeal, plaintiff asserts the following contentions for

our consideration:

           POINT I: THE COURT ERRED BY ACCEPTING THE
           DEFICIENT ACCOUNTING PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT
           DUE TO ITS FAILURE TO MEET CRITERIA PURSUANT
                                 2
                                                          A-0675-15T1
           TO COURT ORDERS AND R. 4:87-3 EFFECTUATING
           BOTH PLAIN AND HARMFUL ERROR.

           POINT II: THE COURT ERRED BY SHIFTING THE
           BURDEN OF PROOF TO PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

           POINT III: THE COURT ERRED BY FAILURE TO
           ACCEPT MS. BUCOSSI’S RESIGNATION AS TRUSTEE
           AND DISMISSING DAMAGES CLAIM AS PROPOSED BY
           LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND
           DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT BUCOSSI.

           POINT IV: THE COURT ERRED BY VIOLATING
           JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT CANON 3.A(8).[1]

           POINT V: THE COURT ERRED BY ABUSE OF
           JUDICIAL DISCRETION.

      Plaintiff’s brief was in large measure incomprehensible,

necessitating the expenditure of considerable time and effort to

understand the arguments he advanced under each point heading.

To the extent we were able to comprehend them, we scrutinized

the evidence to determine if any possessed factual support and

reviewed the law to ascertain if they were supported by legal

authority.    In the final analysis, we concluded plaintiff’s

arguments are utterly devoid of merit.    In fact, they do not

even warrant discussion in a written opinion.     R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.




1
    The correct citation is Canon 3, Rule 3.11.
                                 3
                                                             A-0675-15T1