GIGI K COLLECTIONS, INC. AND GIGI K NYC VS. UNITEDMERCHANT SERVICES(DC-14792-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3204-15T4

Gigi K Collections, Inc. and Gigi K NYC (Gigi) contracted with United Merchant Services (UMS) for POS credit‑card processing and related remittance services.
Gigi sent 30 days' written notice it would not renew the contract, but continued using the card machines during the 30‑day period.
Gigi sued in Special Civil Part claiming UMS breached the contract and converted funds by failing to pay approximately $9,300 in approved card transactions.
At bench trial, each side presented a manager/owner witness: Gigi's owner testified Gigi expected payment and that batching was automatic; UMS's manager testified UMS stopped processing upon receipt of Gigi's termination notice and offered to reprocess certain American Express transactions.
The trial judge found both witnesses credible, concluded Gigi presented no proof that UMS collected and retained Gigi's proceeds, found Gigi had failed to mitigate by refusing reprocessing, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UMS breached contract by ceasing to process transactions after Gigi's 30‑day notice	UMS prematurely stopped processing and thereby breached, causing lost sales proceeds	UMS lawfully ceased processing upon termination notice and did not collect/retain Gigi's funds	Court affirmed: insufficient evidence UMS collected/converted proceeds; no breach established
Whether Gigi was required to "batch" daily receipts to receive funds	Batching was automatic via UMS equipment; Gigi not obligated to perform batching	Gigi failed to batch, which caused its losses; UMS offered to reprocess some transactions	Court accepted that Gigi's failure to batch could explain losses and held evidence supported judgment for UMS
Admissibility of UMS's offer to reprocess AmEx transactions (N.J.R.E. 408)	Offer was a settlement/discounted settlement and thus inadmissible under Rule 408	Offer was not a settlement; it showed Gigi's failure to mitigate damages	Court held the offer was admissible as evidence of mitigation, not a settlement offer
Standard of appellate review for bench trial findings	(implicit) Trial judge's credibility findings should stand	(implicit) Defer to trial court unless findings are manifestly unsupported	Appellate court applied deferential review and found adequate credible evidence to support verdict

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard on appellate review of trial court factfinding in non‑jury cases)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Township Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (no deference to trial court's legal conclusions; de novo review)
Griepenburg v. Township of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239 (2015) (deference to trial court credibility findings in non‑jury cases)
Petrozzi v. City of Ocean City, 433 N.J. Super. 290 (App. Div. 2013) (review standards for bench trial determinations)
State v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 386 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 2006) (obligation to mitigate damages in contract contexts)
Covino v. Peck, 233 N.J. Super. 612 (App. Div. 1989) (principle that claimant must avoid damages reasonably avoidable)