JACQUELINE NGUYEN v. JOEL SELTZER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3535-15T2

JACQUELINE NGUYEN,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOEL SELTZER,

     Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________

              Submitted April 10, 2018 – Decided April 18, 2018

              Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-1238-
              13.

              Jacqueline Nguyen, appellant pro se.

              Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

        Plaintiff     appeals    from   an   order    dated   March    30,   2016,

dismissing her legal malpractice claim against defendant, her

former attorney.         After a bench trial, Judge Mark P. Ciarrocca

issued an oral opinion on March 30, 2016, finding that defendant

was a credible witness, but plaintiff, her husband and her expert
witness were not credible.          Based on the facts as he found them,

the   judge    concluded   that     plaintiff    did    not   prove   defendant

committed malpractice.          We affirm for the reasons stated in Judge

Ciarrocca's opinion.       We add the following comments.

      On an appeal from a bench trial, our review is limited.                  We

must defer to the trial judge's findings, as long as they are

supported by substantial credible evidence.               Rova Farms Resort,

Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 
65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).              We owe special

deference to the judge's evaluation of witness credibility. Cesare

v. Cesare, 
154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998).            After reviewing the record,

we    find    no   basis   to     disturb   Judge      Ciarrocca's    decision.

Plaintiff's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to

warrant discussion in a written opinion.            R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.




                                        2                               A-3535-15T2