ROBERT J. TRIFFIN v. NDS, INC.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2322-16T3

ROBERT J. TRIFFIN,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NDS, INC., (Individually and Operating
Through Its Agent), CERIDIAN CORPORATION,
a/k/a CERIDIAN PAYMENT SOLUTIONS SUPPORT
and MIKE GUMMESON, CEO and PRESIDENT,

        Defendants-Respondents,

and

TIMOTHY SHISSLER,

     Defendant.
____________________________________________

              Argued February 5, 2018 – Decided March 5, 2018

              Before Judges O'Connor and Vernoia.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Essex County, Docket No.
              DC-011517-16.

              Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause
              pro se.

              Michael J. Gesualdo argued the cause for
              respondents (Robinson Miller LLC, attorneys;
              Michael J. Gesualdo, on the brief).
PER CURIAM

     Plaintiff Robert J. Triffin appeals from an order granting

defendant NDS, Inc.'s summary judgment motion and dismissing his

complaint that sought damages based on a dishonored check issued

on defendant's behalf.        We affirm.

     Plaintiff's complaint alleges he is the assignee of the rights

to a dishonored payroll check issued by Ceridian Corporation on

defendant's     behalf   to   one   of       defendant's   employees,   Timothy

Shissler.      Plaintiff alleged the check was cashed by One Stop

Financial Services, Inc., but was dishonored when presented for

payment.     According to the complaint, One Stop assigned all of its

rights to the dishonored check to plaintiff.                Plaintiff alleged

the check bore "No. 731039407."

     The complaint claimed the dishonor of the check breached

defendant's obligation to pay the check amount in accordance with


N.J.S.A. 12A:3-414 (count one), violated the New Jersey Wage

Payment Law, 
N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -68 (count two), and constituted

unjust enrichment (count three).             Plaintiff sought damages in the

amount of the check, and for a returned check fee, consolidated

credit reporting and access maintenance fees and pre-judgment

interest.1


1
   Plaintiff also asserted claims against Shissler and Ceridian
but dismissed them in the Law Division.

                                         2                              A-2322-16T3
     Defendant moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence

that its records showed Shissler electronically deposited the

check and it was paid.       Defendant argued it was entitled to

judgment as a matter of law as the drawer of the check pursuant

to 
N.J.S.A. 12A:3-414(c), which provides that "[i]f a draft is

accepted by a bank, the drawer is discharged, regardless of when

or by whom acceptance was obtained."

     Plaintiff   opposed   the   motion,    but   he   did   not   challenge

defendant's   claims   concerning   check   No.   731039407.       Instead,

plaintiff submitted a certification from the general manager of

One Stop stating it never cashed check No. 731039407, and never

assigned any rights to the check to plaintiff. The general manager

explained that when One Stop assigned its rights to various checks

to plaintiff, it erroneously listed check No. 731039407 as a

dishonored check that was being assigned.

     The general manager further certified that One Stop assigned

plaintiff its rights to a different check, No. 731008080, which

was issued by Ceridian on defendant's behalf to Shissler, was

cashed by One Stop, and then dishonored. Thus, the general manager

certified that One Stop never cashed check No. 731039407 or

assigned any rights to the check to plaintiff.           Having presented

the general manager's certification in opposition to defendant's



                                    3                                A-2322-16T3
summary judgment motion, plaintiff agreed he was never assigned

any rights to check No. 731039407.

     The court granted defendant's summary judgment motion.     The

court determined that based upon the parties' submissions, the

undisputed facts showed check No. 731039407 was electronically

deposited by Shissler, and that pursuant to 
N.J.S.A. 12A:3-414(b),

NDS, through its agent Ceridian, was discharged as the drawer from

any liability to any alleged holder in due course, including

plaintiff.2   This appeal followed.

     In plaintiff's brief on appeal, he does not contend the court

erred by granting summary judgment on his claims, to the extent

they were founded on the alleged dishonor of check No. 731039407.

Indeed, he acknowledges that One Stop never assigned to him any

rights to check No. 731039407.        At oral argument, plaintiff

conceded he was never assigned rights to check No. 731039407, and

acknowledged that, consistent with the One Stop general manager's

certification, One Stop assigned him its rights to check No.

731008080.    Moreover, plaintiff acknowledges he never filed a

complaint against defendant arising out of the alleged dishonor

of check No. 731008080, and never requested an amendment of the



2
   The court also granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims
that the alleged dishonor of the check violated "New Jersey's Wage
Payment Law" and constituted unjust enrichment.

                                 4                         A-2322-16T3
complaint to assert claims related to the alleged dishonor of that

check.

      Based on the foregoing, we affirm the court's grant of summary

judgment, although on a different basis.          See Do-Wop Corp. v. City

of Rahway, 
168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001) (explaining "appeals are taken

from orders and judgments and not from . . . reasons given for the

ultimate conclusion"); see also Townsend v. Pierre, 
221 N.J. 36,

59 (2015) (explaining that a summary judgment decision is reviewed

de novo applying the same standard governing the trial court).

The   certification     of   One   Stop's   general     manager,   plaintiff's

admissions   in   his    brief     on   appeal,   and    plaintiff's    candid

acknowledgement at oral argument establish he lacked standing to

assert claims based on the alleged dishonor of check No. 731039407

because he was never assigned any rights to the check.3                     Cf.

Triffin v. Somerset Valley Bank, 
343 N.J. Super. 73, 81 (App. Div.

2001) (finding plaintiff had standing to assert claims against the

drawer of dishonored checks because he was "the purchaser and

assignee" of the checks).           Defendant is therefore entitled to

judgment on the claims asserted in the complaint as a matter of



3
   Because plaintiff's lack of standing requires summary judgment
in defendant's favor, it is unnecessary to address plaintiff's
argument that defendant presented insufficient competent evidence
supporting the court's determination that check No. 731039407 was
electronically deposited and paid.

                                        5                              A-2322-16T3
law.    See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 
142 N.J. 520,

540 (1995).

       Affirmed.




                                6                         A-2322-16T3