LEE MAYOR v. SNEZANA MAYOR

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5086-07T25086-07T2

LEE MAYOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SNEZANA MAYOR,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________________________________________

 

Submitted February 10, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Graves and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County,

Docket No. FM-14-318-05.

Lee Mayor, appellant pro se.

Snezana Mayor, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Lee Mayor appeals from an order entered on May 30, 2008, which denied his motion seeking: (1) to emancipate the parties' son and to terminate plaintiff's child support obligation; (2) reimbursement for any child support payments made by plaintiff after the child was emancipated; (3) to compel defendant Snezana Mayor to pay one-half of Dr. Littman's dental bill; (4) to have defendant adjudicated in violation of litigant's rights for failing to allow him to retrieve an air conditioner and tools from the former marital home, and for entry of a judgment against defendant in the amount of $15,000; (5) to compel defendant to either return a "quad" to him or to pay him $5,650; and (6) to compel defendant to pay one-half of the unreimbursed portion of a hospital emergency room bill.

Our ability to review this matter has been hampered by numerous procedural deficiencies. Nevertheless, based on the trial court's decision, we are satisfied that plaintiff's arguments do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Robert J. Brennan in his comprehensive written decision, which is attached to the order entered on May 30, 2008.

 
Affirmed.

For example, plaintiff has failed to include in the appeal record the documents filed in the court below, as required by Rule 2:5-4.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5086-07T2

March 18, 2009

 


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.