Discover Bank v. Joseph Sedrak

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-0553-24 DISCOVER BANK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH SEDRAK, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Argued September 16, 2026 – Decided October 6, 2026 Before Judges Smith and Vinci. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, DC-001976-24. Joseph Sedrak, self-represented appellant. Jesse R. Barreiro argued the cause for respondent (Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP, attorneys; Michael J. Peters and Jesse R. Barreiro, on the brief). PER CURIAM Self-represented defendant Joseph Sedrak appeals from a July 5, 2024 order granting plaintiff Discover Bank's unopposed motion for summary judgment and an August 16, 2024 order denying his motion to vacate final judgment. We affirm. We summarize the facts supported by "competent evidential materials presented" in the light most favorable to defendant. See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). Plaintiff extended credit card privileges to defendant. On February 20, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging defendant defaulted on his payment obligations and sought judgment in the principal amount of $5,090.84. On April 1, 2024, defendant filed an answer in which he admitted he "opened and used the account" but asserted he "was a victim of identity theft, [a]nd . . . did not make these charges." Defendant did not serve any requests for discovery prior to the entry of summary judgment. On June 20, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment supported by a statement of material facts in accordance with Rule 4:46-2(a). Plaintiff alleged defendant's "account [was] presently in default in the amount of $5,090.84" and attached "the final account statement with a closing date of November 12, 2023" that showed "a final outstanding balance in the amount of A-0553-24 2 $5,090.84" that was "subject to charge-off on . . . November 30, 2023." Defendant did not oppose the motion. On July 5, 2024, the court entered an order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment supported by a written decision. It determined the motion was unopposed and "all well supported facts are deemed admitted for purposes of this motion" pursuant to Rule 4:46-2(b). The court found "[p]ursuant to the unrebutted proofs, [d]efendant incurred debt pursuant to a credit card agreement, . . . ultimately defaulted," and "owe[d] $5,090.84" as "demonstrated by the periodic billing statements." On July 19, 2024, defendant contacted plaintiff by phone to request his "last [three] years of . . . bank statements." His call was transferred to plaintiff's counsel, and defendant requested copies of the statements. On July 30, 2024, defendant received the statements for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021. Defendant sent several follow-up emails to plaintiff's counsel requesting the statements for 2022, which he received on August 19, 2024. On August 2, 2024, defendant filed a motion to "vacate default judgment." Without providing any supporting evidence, defendant claimed he "had fraudulent charges on [his] credit card during the [COVID-19] pandemic" and A-0553-24 3 "notified the Discover card." Defendant asserted he "should not pay for these fraudulent charges." On August 16, 2024, the court entered an order denying defendant's motion supported by a written decision. The court noted defendant failed to provide any "supporting documentation" for his claims that "the charges at issue were fraudulent" or that he "ever advised [p]laintiff of same." It determined defendant "fail[e]d to assert any grounds for" relief under Rule 4:50-1. The court determined defendant "provide[d] no reason for why he did not oppose the motion for summary judgment, thus was not availing himself of subsection (a) which permits relief for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." It found defendant did not cite to any "newly discovered evidence, pursuant to subsection (b)," identify any alleged fraud "by a party" as "referenced in subsection (c)," or "contend . . . he did not receive notice of the motion or that the judgment [wa]s void under subsection (d)." The court also concluded there was "nothing 'exceptional' about this matter that require[d] invocation of the subsection (f) catchall." This appeal followed. On appeal, defendant argues that on July 19, 2024, he requested "the bank statement[s] for the year of 2022" and "[d]espite repeated requests to compel and provide copies of the 2022 statements, . . . [p]laintiff failed to disclose these A-0553-24 4 documents." He claims, "had the 2022 [s]tatement[s] been provided [they] would have shown there was a material disagreement/dispute of the facts which would have warranted the denial of [s]ummary [j]udgment" and "the absence of the 2022 [s]tatement[s] from the [p]laintiff's [m]otion [p]apers renders the [court's] findings unsupported." Defendant also contends "[t]he absence of the 2022 [s]tatement[s] [effectively] eliminated any basis for the [c]ourt . . . to [deny] [d]efendant['s] [m]otion to [v]acate." We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the court's written decisions. We add the following brief comments. Our review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73 , 78 (2022). We apply the same standard as the trial court and consider "whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." Brill, 142 N.J. at 540 . "By its plain language, Rule 4:46-2 dictates that a court should deny a summary judgment motion only where [a] party opposing the motion has come forward with evidence that creates a 'genuine issue as to any material fact challenged.'" Id. at 529 (emphasis removed). Pursuant to Rule 4:46-2(b), if the A-0553-24 5 non-moving party fails to oppose a motion for summary judgment "all material facts in the movant's statement [of material facts] which are sufficiently supported will be deemed admitted." A party who fails to oppose a properly supported motion for summary judgment "will not be heard to complain if the court grants summary judgment, taking as true the statement of uncontradicted facts in the papers relied upon by the moving party." Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954). Based on our de novo review, we are convinced the court properly granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment. In the absence of a filed opposition, the court correctly concluded the facts set forth in plaintiff's statement of material facts were admitted for the purpose of summary judgment. Plaintiff, therefore, established defendant incurred the alleged debt, defaulted, and owed the amount alleged as due. Defendant's contention that the court's findings were "unsupported" lacks merit. We are also satisfied there is no basis for use to disturb the court's decision to deny defendant's motion to vacate. "We review a motion under Rule 4:50-1 to vacate final judgment under an abuse of discretion standard." 257-261 20th Ave. Realty, LLC v. Roberto, 477 N.J. Super. 339 , 366 (App. Div. 2023) (citing U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012)). "The trial court's A-0553-24 6 determination under [Rule 4:50-1] . . . should not be reversed unless it results in a clear abuse of discretion." Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 467 . Pursuant to Rule 4:50-1, "the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment or order" based on: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (b) newly discovered evidence which would probably alter the judgment or order and which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under [Rule] 4:49; (c) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (d) the judgment or order is void; (e) the judgment or order has been satisfied, released or discharged . . . ; or (f) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order. As the court correctly concluded, defendant failed to set forth any meritorious basis to vacate final judgment. He did not allege his failure to oppose plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was due to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" as required by subsection (a). Defendant also did not identify any "newly discovered evidence" that could not have been discovered earlier to which subsection (b) would apply. Nor did he allege any basis to grant relief under subsections (c), (d), (e), or (f). Defendant's argument that plaintiff failed to produce copies of his 2022 statements is raised for the first time on appeal. Defendant did not make any A-0553-24 7 such claim in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or in support of his motion to vacate. Generally, we "will decline to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is available 'unless the questions so raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest.'" Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (quoting Reynolds Offset Co. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div. 1959)). Because defendant failed to raise this argument in the trial court, it is waived. Even if we considered defendant's argument, we are convinced it is without merit. Defendant concedes he first requested the 2022 statements on July 19, 2024, two weeks after the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. His contention, therefore, that plaintiff failed to produce the 2022 statements before the court granted its motion is contradicted by the record. In addition, the fact that defendant could have requested and obtained the 2022 statements in discovery before summary judgment was granted precludes any claim that the statements constituted "newly discovered evidence" as contemplated by Rule 4:50-1(b). Affirmed. A-0553-24 8