Unpublished Opinions for the Week of June 6

01-2-9337 Phillips v. N.J. Dep’t of Health and Senior Servs., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) Petitioner appealed the final decision of the department denying her application to become a certified nurse aide. The panel affirmed. It found that petitioner had been convicted of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child in 2001 and had falsely answered “no” to the question on her application that asked if she had been convicted of crimes involving the family, and that she had signed the application, acknowledging that she had read and understood the document and also understood that a false answer would result in immediate disqualification from CNA certification. The panel therefore concluded that the record clearly supported the determination that petitioner was properly disqualified from CNA certification and she failed to make any showing that the decision under review was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that it lacked fair support in the record.

15-2-9353 Citibank N.A. v. Covington, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) In this credit card collection matter, defendant Fred Covington Jr. appealed from a Special Civil Part summary judgment order requiring him to pay $2,488.25 to plaintiff Citibank N.A. and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Covington, who was not represented by counsel, filed an answer to the complaint, but did not dispute making charges to the account or receiving billing statements from Citibank. Rather, he challenged Citibank’s standing to sue as the account creditor, stating that the account statements made no representation as to whom said payments were owed. Notably, though, the statements sent to Covington stated in unambiguous terms: “This [a]ccount is issued by Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.” On appeal, Covington contended that the trial court erred in granting Citibank’s summary judgment motion because Citibank failed to demonstrate that it was the creditor in the transaction entitled to the balance due and because Citibank’s summary judgment motion did not satisfy Rule 6:6-3 or the criteria established in relevant case law. Theappellate panel concluded that the trial court’s decisions were factually and legally correct.