01-2-4381 J.L. v. Dep’t of Human Services, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Appellant appealed the denial of his request for housing Emergency Assistance. Appellant had an income of approximately $600 a month from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance. He lived with his mother and paid rent to her. Mother wrote a letter stating that appellant and his son had to leave her residence by June 1, 2016. The ALJ found appellant to be not credible, that he was not homeless because mother had not yet carried through her threat to evict him and that he had shown no evidence of a job search and his imminent homelessness was due to his own actions. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because appellant no longer claimed to be eligible for EA and the appeal raised no issue of significant public importance that was capable of repetition but evaded review. The court also noted that the hearing was disconcerting because the ALJ prevented appellant from completing his testimony and went off the record in the middle of the hearing.
06-2-4368 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. N. Exec. Motor Club LLC, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Plaintiff appealed from the order dismissing its only count against defendant Navy Federal Credit Union for failure to state a claim, and further appealed from the order denying reconsideration. Plaintiff deposited a check for $64,000 drawn on NFCU payable to Jennifer Aldridge and defendant Northern Executive Motor Club, LLC, into Northern Executive’s account with plaintiff. The check was indorsed by Aldridge but not Northern Executive. Plaintiff then honored all checks drawn and withdrawals against the credit from the $64,000 check. However, NFCU later return the check unpaid based on the missing signature from Northern Executive; NFCU’s failure to honor the check created an overdraft that was not paid by Northern Executive. In its complaint, plaintiff argued it was a holder in due course. The trial court granted NFCU’s motion to dismiss the count against it, reasoning that plaintiff was not a holder in due course because it failed to exercise ordinary care that substantially contributed to the improper negotiation of the check. On appeal, the court reversed, finding the trial court’s reasoning flawed, based on the UCC’s grant of holder in due course status to a depositing bank, regardless of whether the check was indorsed by the customer. Moreover, the court held that the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care was a factual determination requiring trial.
