ROBERT J. TRIFFIN v. EXTENSIS GROUP, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5512-15T4

ROBERT J. TRIFFIN,

              Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EXTENSIS GROUP, LLC, a/k/a
EXTENSIS and RICHARD
AUGUSTYN,

              Defendants-Respondents,

and

MARIA PAGAN,

          Defendant.
__________________________________

              Argued January 11, 2018 – Decided January 25, 2018

              Before Judges Haas and Gooden Brown.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No.
              DC-003815-16.

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

              Ronald A. Berutti argued the cause for
              respondents (Weiner Law Group, LLP, attorneys;
              Ronald A. Berutti, of counsel and on the
              brief).
PER CURIAM

     Plaintiff Robert Triffin appeals from the July 26, 2016 order

dismissing   his   complaint   after   a    bench    trial.    We    affirm

substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge James DeLuca's

comprehensive written opinion issued that same date.

     Triffin purchased a dishonored payroll check from Fair Lawn

Financial Services d/b/a United Check Cashing (United).          The check

in the amount of $610.82 was issued by defendant Extensis Group,

LLC (Extensis) to defendant Maria Pagan.1           The face of the check2

prominently stated:     "THE FACE OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS A COLORED

BACKGROUND NOT A WHITE BACKGROUND."        The copy of the check Triffin

introduced in evidence had a white background.

     The check also stated:     "THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS

A UNIQUE CHECK IDENTITY BARCODE AND AN ARTIFICIAL WATERMARK – HOLD

AT AN ANGLE TO VIEW."    Triffin's check did not have this unique

barcode or watermark.


1
   Triffin never served Pagan with a copy of his complaint and,
therefore, Judge DeLuca dismissed his claims against her at the
trial. Triffin does not challenge this ruling on appeal.
2
  The check was attached to Triffin's complaint and introduced in
evidence as an exhibit at the trial. In his appendix, however,
Triffin has provided a different copy of the check than what he
attached to his complaint, and failed to include the check that
was introduced at the trial. Because the document in Triffin's
appendix is not properly part of the appellate record, we do not
consider it.

                                  2                                 A-5512-15T4
     In addition, the face of the check stated that it    was "Void

After 90 Days."    The check was dated August 7, 2014, and Triffin

did not purchase it from United until October 15, 2015, long after

this ninety-day period expired.      Finally, the check is marked

"VOID" in numerous places on its face.

     Under these circumstances, Judge DeLuca held that Triffin was

not a holder in due course of the dishonored check and, therefore,

he was not entitled to recover against Extensis.      As the judge

explained, "[a] reasonable person who inspected the check, [and]

read the clear warnings and statements contained therein, could

and should have determined that they had been presented with either

a photocopy or an altered check."

     Judge DeLuca also rejected Triffin's argument that Extensis'

president, defendant Richard Augustyn, was liable to him for the

amount of the check under New Jersey's Wage Payment Law, 
N.J.S.A.

34:11-4.1 to -34:4.14.   Because Triffin failed to demonstrate that

Pagan ever assigned any of her rights to him, the judge concluded

that Triffin lacked standing to bring this claim.      This appeal

followed.

     On appeal, Triffin presents the following contentions:

            POINT ONE

            THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
            WHEN HE FAILED TO ADHERE TO THE UCC'S CHECK


                                 3                          A-5512-15T4
          COLLECTION STANDARDS, AND AS MANDATED BY THE
          NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT.

               (A)    CONTROLLING LEGAL    STANDARDS/CHECK
                      COLLECTION LAW.

                      (1)   THE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE
                            RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT
                            EXTENSIS   PAID  MS.   PAGAN'S
                            CHECK.

                      (2)   EXTENSIS FAILED TO SET FORTH A
                            PERSONAL DEFENSE, SO PURSUANT
                            TO   
N.J.S.A.  12A:3-308   THE
                            ISSUE OF TRIFFIN'S HOLDER IN
                            DUE COURSE STATUS DOES NOT
                            ARISE.

                      (3)   THE VOID AFTER 90 DAYS LEGEND,
                            AND   THE  SECURITY   FEATURES
                            REFERENCED ON THE DISHONORED
                            CHECK WHICH TRIFFIN SEEKS TO
                            ENFORCE AGAINST EXTENSIS ARE
                            OF NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.

          POINT TWO

          THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN AND REVERSIBLE
          ERROR   WHEN   HE   PERMITTED   [AN   EXTENSIS'
          EMPLOYEE] . . . TO TESTIFY, AS TO WHETHER WELLS
          FARGO PAID MS. PAGAN'S CHECK.

     We review the factual findings made by a trial judge to

determine whether they are "supported by adequate, substantial and

credible evidence."   Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co.

of Am., 
65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).       Such findings made by a judge

in a bench trial "should not be disturbed 'unless they are so

wholly insupportable as to result in a denial of justice.'"       Id.

at 483-84 (quoting Greenfield v. Dusseault, 
60 N.J. Super. 436,

                                   4                         A-5512-15T4
444 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b., 
33 N.J. 78 (1960)).              However, "[a]

trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences

that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special

deference."   Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm., 
140 N.J. 366, 378

(1995).

     Applying these standards, we discern no basis for disturbing

Judge   DeLuca's   reasoned   decision,    and   we    are   satisfied   that

Triffin's   arguments   are   without     sufficient    merit   to   warrant

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

     Affirmed.




                                   5                                 A-5512-15T4