counterfeit checks to the Bank, N.J.S.A. 12A:4-406. Thus an analysis of whether the Bank exercised “ordinary care” in paying the instrument, as utilized in sections 3-406 and 4-406, is not relevant to the inquiry on appeal. Our focus is whether the fraudulent checks were authorized by Lor-Mar and in accordance with any agreement between the customer and Bank, N.J.S.A 12A:4-401a. Through no negligence on the part of the customer, Van Middlesworth’s stamped signature was identically duplicated on computer-generated checks. The Bank asserts the signatures of Van Middlesworth are presumed valid and enforceable and plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption of validity, relying on Triffin v. Somerset Valley Bank, 343 N.J.Super. 73, 86, 777 A.2d 993 (App.Div.2001) (<HOLDING>). The Bank further argues that by express
holding defendants possession of forged checks was sufficient to allow inference of his intent to deposit them holding that a party failed to meet this burden when he presented no corroborating evidence by the persons who could have given testimony regarding the execution of the deed such as the person signing as witness to his signature and the notary public who subscribed as having notarized his signature or a handwriting expert in support of the contention that his signature to the deed was forged holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked holding the purported issuer of dishonored payroll checks with facsimile signatures failed to provide sufficient evi denee of the invalidity of its signature under njsa 12a3308 so as to defeat holder in due course status to an assignee who purchased the cheeks from a check cashing company where it was not apparent on the face of the checks they were fraudulent holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record