context: Given the seemingly novel nature of Newman's theory of recovery, we find that it would constitute an abuse of discretion for the court not to require Newman to demonstrate legal grounds supporting his claim of a right to relief against Dean.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 126 N.J.Super. 438, 440
citation_a.parenthetical: denying default judgment to foreclose a tax sale certificate on grounds of failure to state a claim when plaintiffs complaint on its face demonstrated that the action was barred by the statute of limitations
citation_a.sentence: Cf. also Prickett v. Allard, 126 N.J.Super. 438, 440, 315 A.2d 51 (App.Div.) (denying default judgment to foreclose a tax sale certificate on grounds of failure to state a claim when plaintiffs complaint on its face demonstrated that the action was barred by the statute of limitations), aff'd o.b., 66 N.J. 6, 326 A.2d 688 (1974); In re Estate of Sharp, 151 N.J.Super. 579, 582, 377 A.2d 730 (Ch.Div.1977), mod. 163 N.J.Super. 148, 394 A.2d 381 (App.Div. 1978) (holding that the court may, sua sponte, refuse to enter judgment for plaintiff if the complaint on its face fails to state a cause of action as to which relief can be granted).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 264 N.J.Super. 172, 183
citation_b.parenthetical: a successful plaintiff seeking a default judgment can be required to furnish some proof on the merits to show entitlement to the relief demanded
citation_b.sentence: Douglas v. Harris, 35 N.J. 270, 276-81,173 A.2d 1 (1961) (discussing power of court to require proof of liability); Slowinski v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 264 N.J.Super. 172, 183, 624 A.2d 85 (App.Div.1993) (a successful plaintiff seeking a default judgment can be required to furnish some proof on the merits to show entitlement to the relief demanded); Edelstein v. Toyota Motors Distributors, 176 N.J.Super. 57, 63-64, 422 A.2d 101 (App.Div.1980) (vacating default judgment when plaintiff, seeking to revoke his acceptance of a car, had presented no proof that he had contracted with the manufacturer or that the distributor was an agent of the manufacturer); Williams v. Page, 160 N.J.Super. 354, 369, 389 A.2d 1012 (App. Div.1978) (trial judge had discretion to require proof of liability); Metric Investment, Inc. v. Patterson, 98 N.J.Super. 130, 133, 236 A.2d 187 (Law Div.1967) (the entry of default does, not necessarily obviate the obligation of plaintiff to furnish proof on the issue of liability), affd 101 N.J.Super. 301, 244 A.2d 311 (App.Div.1968).