Preview:

a1026-04.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1026-04T11026-04T1
MICHAEL OKPOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
A.T.I. U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant-Respondent.
Argued October 18, 2006 - Decided January 4, 2007
Before Judges Cuff and Fuentes.
On appeal from Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Special
Civil Part, Union County, Docket
No. SC-394-04.
Michael Okpor, appellant, argued the
cause pro se.
David Donald Gabel argued the cause
for respondent (Doyle and Doyle, attorneys;
Mr. Gabel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Michael Okpor appeals from an order entered by the Law Division dismissing his claims against defendant,
and entering judgment against him on defendant's counterclaim. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred because
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1026-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:19:38 PM]




a1026-04.opn.html
the judgment entered in defendant's favor was against the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record
before us, and in light of prevailing legal standards, we affirm. These are the facts.
Defendant is in the business of arranging for the shipping of cargo from New Jersey to the African nation of Nigeria.
Plaintiff retained defendant to transport certain personal items to Nigeria, including a truck. To accomplish this task,
defendant paid a carrier a fee of $2,800, and sent plaintiff an invoice and statement of account, reflecting a total
charge of $3,600. It is undisputed that, except for the truck, defendant fulfilled its contractual obligations and
shipped plaintiff's personal items to Lagos, Nigeria. According to defendant, plaintiff never delivered the truck.
From the evidence presented, including the testimony of the parties, the trial court found that the container
holding plaintiff's items reached its destination; and the truck was never delivered to defendant for shipment. The
court also found that defendant had: (1) performed the services required under the contract; (2) incurred and paid
the carrier's $2,800 fee; and (3) had not been paid by plaintiff for the services rendered. The court rejected plaintiff's
claims that, having taken possession of the truck, defendant was legally liable to compensate plaintiff for its value.
The court also denied plaintiff's post-trial motion seeking to re-open the case to introduce documentary evidence
pertaining to the truck.
Our standard of review is well settled. We will not engage in an independent assessment of the evidence as if we
were the court of first instance. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999). A trial court's factual findings "are
considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort,
Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). In this light, we discern no legal basis to interfere with the
trial court's judgment. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial court.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-1026-04T1
January 4, 2007
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1026-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:19:38 PM]




a1026-04.opn.html
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a1026-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 2:19:38 PM]

Download a1026-04.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law