JACQUELINE FIGUEROA v. EARL PEEPLES
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2288-07T12288-07T1
JACQUELINE FIGUEROA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
EARL PEEPLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________________
Submitted November 18, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Skillman and Grall.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FM-15-347-99W.
Earl Peeples, appellant pro se.
Michael B. Berman, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
This appeal from an order entered on July 13, 2007 was not filed until January 7, 2008. Rule 2:4-1(a) requires an appeal to this court to be filed within forty-five days of entry of the judgment. Rule 2:4-4(a) grants this court authority to extend the time for appeal for a period not exceeding thirty days upon a showing of "good cause." After expiration of that thirty-day period, this court has no authority to extend the time for appeal. See Cabrera v. Tronolone, 205 N.J. Super. 268, 271-72 (App. Div. 1985), certif. denied, 103 N.J. 493 (1986). Defendant failed to file a notice of appeal until nearly six months after entry of the order from which the appeal was taken. Therefore, the appeal was untimely and also filed well beyond the thirty-day period within which we could grant an extension upon a showing of good cause. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed as untimely.
We also note that defendant failed to perfect the appeal because he did not order a transcript of the trial court's statement of reasons for denial of his motion for visitation.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-2288-07T1
December 8, 2008
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.