Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-6058-10T1
02-07-2013
IGOR NEMIROVSKIY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATALIE TALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Natalie Talker, appellant pro se. Igor Nemirovskiy, respondent pro se.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Axelrad and Nugent.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Union County, Docket No. DC-024817-10.
Natalie Talker, appellant pro se.
Igor Nemirovskiy, respondent pro se. PER CURIAM
Defendant Natalie Talker appeals from a Special Civil Part judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Igor Nemirovskiy in the amount of $6,575 plus fees and costs of $57. We affirm.
Plaintiff once dated defendant's sister. During that relationship, he permitted defendant to use his credit card to pay a tuition fee totaling $6,575. Plaintiff claimed he loaned the money to defendant. When defendant refused to repay the loan, plaintiff commenced the Special Civil Part action.
At trial, defendant disputed plaintiff's testimony that the tuition payment was a loan to her. She claimed plaintiff had borrowed $7,000 from her mother, and that instead of repaying her mother directly, plaintiff made her tuition payment. Defendant's mother testified and corroborated defendant's testimony. Defendant also presented the testimony of her sister's friend who recalled being present when defendant's mother and another gentleman were counting money, but did not recall seeing the money change hands.
The trial judge believed plaintiff but did not find defendant and her witnesses credible. Based on his credibility determinations, he found in favor of plaintiff.
Defendant contends the judge erred in disbelieving her and her mother. After evaluating the sixteen "points" defendant presents in this appeal, we conclude they do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following.
Our scope of appellate review of a judgment entered in a non-jury case is limited. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). The findings of fact on which the judgment is based "should not be disturbed unless 'they are so wholly [u]nsupportable as to result in a denial of justice[.]'" Id. at 483-84 (quoting Greenfield v. Dusseault, 60 N.J. Super. 436, 444 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b., 33 N.J. 78 (1960)). "Thus, '[w]e do not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence.'" Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Middletown, 399 N.J. Super. 486, 498 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997)). "Because a trial court 'hears the case, sees and observes the witnesses, [and] hears them testify,' it has a better perspective than a reviewing court in evaluating the veracity of witnesses." Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 33 (1988) (quoting Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J. Super. 1, 5 (App. Div. 1961)).
Having considered the record in light of plaintiff's arguments, we find no reason to disturb the judge's findings, which are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION