SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4310-16T3

MARGALIE ORLEANS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WM. S. RICH & SON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted October 17, 2018 – Decided August 14, 2019

Before Judges Fuentes and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law

Division, Union County, Docket No. SC-000269-17.

Anthony H. Guerino, attorney for appellant.

Margalie Orleans, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-4310-16T3

Defendant Wm. S. Rich & Son, a pawnbroker, appeals from the judgment 

entered by the Law Division, Special Civil Part, Small Claims, 1 which found 

defendant failed to return a diamond pendant pledged by plaintiff Margalie 

Orleans as collateral for a $500 loan. We affirm.

Judge James Wilson conducted a bench trial at which plaintiff appeared 

pro se and defendant was represented by counsel. Plaintiff testified that on 

August 4, 2016, she gave defendant "a piece of carat diamond pendant," which 

she described as a "diamond circle . . . with little diamonds all inside of it . . .

[a] pair of diamond earrings . . . a three-stone diamond engagement ring, [and] 

a diamond ring," as collateral for a $500 loan. This transaction occurred at 

defendant's store located at Stuyvesant Avenue in the Township of Union.

Plaintiff testified she repaid the loan on January 13, 2017, which consisted 

of $500 in principal and $139 in interest, for a total of $639. The pledge ticket 

admitted into evidence shows on its face that defendant charged plaintiff an 

annualized interest rate of 54.8 percent. However, plaintiff claimed defendant 

did not return the diamond pedant, which was among the jewelry she pledged as 

 

1

 Pursuant to Rule 6:1-2(a)(2), this matter was tried as a Small Claims case 

because the amount in dispute, including any applicable penalties, does not 

exceed $3,000. 
3

A-4310-16T3

collateral for the loan. In an effort to clarify the basis for plaintiff's claim against 

defendant, Judge Wilson asked plaintiff the following question:

PLAINTIFF: So Mr. Rich's staff stated, according to 

the defendant, this pendant was removed from this 

silver necklace. That's how he explained why this was 

inventoried the way it was. According to him, the chain 

was separate, which is what you see first. The pendant 

was the second item, which he stated is two units.

THE COURT: So . . . you're saying that you gave him 

a necklace with a diamond pendant on it.

PLAINTIFF: Yes.

THE COURT: And then you gave him a separate 

diamond pendant?

PLAINTIFF: Correct.

. . . .

Your Honor, I would like to bring to the [c]ourt's 

attention that the diamond pendant we're discussing is 

very small. It's a half a diamond, originally that were a

pair of tiny studs which were given to me as a gift when 

I graduated from corrections. Because they were so 

tiny, when I wore them they were invisible, so I decided 

to take them apart and turn them into a diamond 

pendant. So we're looking at something that's maybe a 

little bigger than . . . a few inches. So it's pretty small. 

It's all pure diamonds.

THE COURT: And you're saying that it's worth $2,000?

PLAINTIFF: It is. It was from Macy's. It is worth 

$2,000. 
4

A-4310-16T3

As part of defense counsel's cross-examination, plaintiff testified she had 

dealt with defendant before and, up to this point, had not had any problems. 

Plaintiff also testified the pendant was purchased at the Macy's store located in 

the Short Hills Mall. 

Defendant called as its only witness Mark Desanctis, the manager of the

store located in Union Township. According to Desanctis, Wm. S. Rich & Son 

owns and operates twelve pawnshops located throughout the State. He also 

acknowledged being familiar with plaintiff's case and confirmed that plaintiff 

pledged this jewelry on August 4, 2016. The notations on the pledged record 

confirmed the receipt of "a chain, a diamond pendant, a diamond cluster ring, a 

three-stone diamond ring, and a pair of diamond and stone earrings." According 

to Desanctis, these five items were returned to plaintiff. However, Desanctis 

corroborated plaintiff's testimony that the chain was separated from the pendant 

and was thus considered two separate items of jewelry. Desanctis identified a 

copy of a redeem ticket dated August 4, 2016, with plaintiff's signature, 

reflecting five items of jewelry.

On cross-examination by plaintiff, Desanctis testified he was at the store 

on January 13, 2017. However, the redeem ticket was not time-stamped. 

Desanctis also confirmed that the writing on the redeem ticket was from Kelly,
5

A-4310-16T3

"one of the workers . . . at the store." The store at Union Township had three 

fulltime employees at the time. When plaintiff asked Desanctis why Kelly was 

not in court to testify, he responded: "She doesn’t need to be here. . . . I'm the 

manager of the store."

At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Wilson found defendant's witness's 

testimony "fraught with hearsay, as he had no firsthand knowledge of what 

actually happened[.]" Judge Wilson thus found plaintiff had sustained her 

burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence:

that on August 4th, 2016 . . . she came to the defendant's 

shop, tendered six items to the defendant for collateral

for a $500-loan, and that when she paid off the loan she 

only received five of those items back, and she was 

missing a diamond pendant, half a carat that was 

merged together, and that was worth $2,000.

The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,000, plus 

court costs.

Against this record defendant argues the trial court's decision must be 

reversed because there was no evidence to support the value of the pendant, 

Judge Wilson's decision "could not have been reasonably reached," and the 

testimony about insurance coverage for this loss constituted plain error under 

Rule 2:10-2.
6

A-4310-16T3

Defendant is regulated by the New Jersey Department of Banking and 

Insurance as a licensed pawnbroker under the General Provisions Regulating 

Pawnbrokers, N.J.S.A. 45:22-1 to -33, officially known as the "pawnbroking 

law." N.J.S.A. 45:22-1. Under this statutory scheme, defendant is:

liable for the loss of a pledge or part thereof, or for 

injury thereto, whether caused by fire, theft, burglary or 

otherwise, resulting from his failure to exercise 

reasonable care in regard to it, but he shall not be liable, 

in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, 

for the loss of a pledge or part thereof, or for injury 

thereto, which could not have been avoided by the 

exercise of such care. The burden of proof to establish 

reasonable care shall be upon the pawnbroker.

[N.J.S.A. 45:22-24 (emphasis added).]

Furthermore, we review the factual determinations made by a judge sitting 

as the trier of fact in a bench trial guided by the following deferential standard:

Final determinations made by the trial court sitting in a 

non-jury case are subject to a limited and wellestablished scope of review: "we do not disturb the

factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge 

unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly 

unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, 

relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend 

the interests of justice[.]"

[D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013)

(quoting Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 

N.J. 150, 169 (2011) (alteration in original)).]
7

A-4310-16T3

Based on this well-settled common law standard of review, as augmented 

by defendant's burden of proof under N.J.S.A. 45:22-24, we discern no legal or 

factual basis to disturb Judge Wilson's findings. 

 Affirmed.