D'AGOSTINO v. CAPITAL ONE, A-0431-15T4. (2017)
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey
Number: innjco20171218311
Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2017
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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. PER CURIAM . Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino appeals from an August 12, 2015 order granting summary judgment to defendant Gary Mason on plaintiff's claim that Mason was not entitled to be paid for legal servic
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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. PER CURIAM . Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino appeals from an August 12, 2015 order granting summary judgment to defendant Gary Mason on plaintiff's claim that Mason was not entitled to be paid for legal service..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino appeals from an August 12, 2015 order granting summary judgment to defendant Gary Mason on plaintiff's claim that Mason was not entitled to be paid for legal services he provided to plaintiff. Plaintiff also challenges a March 12, 2015 order granting summary judgment to defendant Capital One Bank (USA) on plaintiff's claims that the bank should not have billed him after plaintiff used his Capital One credit card to pay Mason, and that Capital One defamed him by reporting a delinquency to a credit agency on a different credit card issued by HSBC Bank.1
On appeal, plaintiff argues the following points:
I. The trial [c]ourt harmfully erred by granting Capit[a]l One's [motion for summary judgment].
A. The trial [c]ourt improperly weighed the evidence.
B. Capit[a]l One's cashing of [plaintiff's] "full payment" check constituted accord and satisfaction.
1. The clause in the Customer Agreement was unenforceable.
2. Even if the clause in the Customer Agreement was enforceable[,] Capit[a]l One's cashing of [plaintiff's] "full payment" check still constituted accord and satisfaction.
C. Capit[a]l One is liable for the HSBC judgment and defamation.
II. The trial [c]ourt harmfully erred by granting Mason's [motion for summary judgment]. A. The trial [c]ourt improperly weighed the evidence.
B. The contract was between Mason and [plaintiff].
C. The trial [c]ourt erred in denying motion to amend.
D. The causes of action in the instant matter are based on contract law, not tort (i.e. professional negligence).
E. Even if an [Affidavit of Merit] was needed, [plaintiff] complied with the statute.
III. Request the case be reassigned to a new judge on remand.
We conclude that plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
FootNotes
1. The two orders also dismissed plaintiff's complaint against both defendants.
Source: Leagle
