Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0297-16T4
01-31-2018
ROBERT J. TRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a ZURICH and CHRISTIAN JEREZ, Defendants-Respondents.
Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Walter F. Kawalec, III, argued the cause for respondent (Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, attorneys; Dante C. Rohr, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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. Before Judges O'Connor and Vernoia. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. DC-004242-16. Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Walter F. Kawalec, III, argued the cause for respondent (Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, attorneys; Dante C. Rohr, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In this matter, plaintiff Robert J. Triffin seeks to recover the sum of $999.39 on an allegedly dishonored check in the amount of $592.42, which defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) had issued to the order of co-defendant Christian Jerez. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting Zurich summary judgment dismissal. Because the order is interlocutory and plaintiff failed to seek leave to appeal as required by Rule 2:2-4, we dismiss.
In his notice of appeal, plaintiff represented there were not any claims against any party that had not been disposed of with finality. However, although the complaint against Zurich had been dismissed with prejudice, the complaint against Jerez was still pending. The clerk had entered default against Jerez because of his failure to appear or file a responsive pleading, see Rule 6:6-2, but plaintiff had not sought the entry of final judgment against him, see Rule 6:6-3.
Only final judgments may be appealed as of right. R. 2:2-3(a). In general, to be a final judgment, an order or judgment must dispose of all claims against all parties. "To have the finality required to create appellate jurisdiction, an order must not only completely dispose of all pleaded claims as to all parties, but all its dispositions must also be final." Grow Co. v. Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. 443, 460 (App. Div. 2008) (citing Lawler v. Isaac, 249 N.J. Super. 11, 17 (App. Div. 1991)). If devoid of the required finality, an order is interlocutory and appellate review is available only by leave granted under Rule 2:2-4 and Rule 2:5-6(a).
Moreover, interlocutory review is "limited to those exceptional cases warranting appellate intervention, [and] the sole discretion to permit an interlocutory appeal has been lodged with the appellate courts." Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. at 458 (citing Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 599-600 (2008)). "Interlocutory review is highly discretionary and is to be exercised only sparingly because of the strong policy 'that favors an uninterrupted proceeding at the trial level with a single and complete review . . . .'" Id. at 461 (quoting S.N. Golden Estates, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 317 N.J. Super. 82, 88 (App. Div. 1998)) (citation omitted).
An entry of default judgment constitutes a final disposition but the entry of default does not. Thus, when the notice of appeal was filed the complaint against Jerez had not been disposed of with finality and remained unresolved. Because plaintiff neither sought nor obtained leave to appeal the order from which he appeals, we must dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.
Appeal dismissed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION