PETER GARFINKEL v. LORI GARFINKEL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4769-07T34769-07T3

A-0204-08T3

PETER GARFINKEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LORI GARFINKEL,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

 

Submitted October 20, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Grall and LeWinn.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Family Part,

Warren County, Docket No. FM-21-110-08.

Peter Garfinkel, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In two separate appeals, which we now consolidate and resolve in this opinion, plaintiff Peter Garfinkel seeks reversal of orders entered on April 25 and August 11, 2008. Both require him to pay his former wife, defendant Lori Garfinkel, $612 per month toward the cost of work-related child care. The eldest of the Garfinkels' three children was born in 1998 and the youngest was born in 2000. The April 25 order covers expenses for the period from June 2007 through April 2008. The August 11 order clarifies that the obligation continues effective May 2008.

Plaintiff raises the same issue on both appeals:

The defendant blatantly disregarded SUPPLEMENTAL DUAL FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DIVORCE, the divorce decree. The defendant never contacted me at all for any work related child care. There were never any proposals sent to me in writing for any daycare. The defendant unilaterally, without my knowledge whatsoever, put the children in an aftercare program. The defendant just unabashedly violated this order. I never received anything in writing, verbally or electronically discussing any issue of aftercare at all.

Because plaintiff has not provided us with a copy of the notices, certifications or exhibits submitted to the trial court on the motions that led to the issuance of the orders he challenges, we affirm. Those parts of the record "are essential to the proper consideration of the issues" raised on appeal. R. 2:6-1(a)(1). Without that material, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to relief and we cannot review the validity of his claims. As this court has noted in the past, when a party seeks review of an order entered on a motion without providing us with "the notice of motion filed in the trial court or any supporting certifications that might demonstrate a factual basis for our interfering with the trial court's discretion on this issue," the party leaves us in a position in which we have no basis for disturbing the trial court's ruling. Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 178-79 (App. Div. 2002).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4769-07T3

November 10, 2009