THEODORE LEVY v. MATTHEW LINDA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4803-09T4

THEODORE LEVY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MATTHEW LINDA, t/a GLOBAL

WASTE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Respondent.

__________________________________________

December 5, 2011

Submitted November 28, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Grall and Skillman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No.

DC-20006-07.

Theodore Levy, appellant pro se.

Matthew Linda, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from an order entered on April 30, 2010, which denied his motion for reconsideration of an order entered on September 23, 2009. On appeal, plaintiff presents his arguments under the following point headings:

POINT I:

THE JUDGE HEREIN DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF LAWFULLY, SOMETIMES ACTING WHILE ON THE BENCH AS LAWYER FOR DEFENDANT; ADMITTING AND INCORPORATING INTO ALL HIS ORDERS INADMISSIBLE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS; AND STATING DEFENDANT'S FALSE ASSERTIONS AS THE JUDGE'S OWN. ACCORDINGLY, ALL HIS ORDERS AND MOTION DENIALS SHOULD BE VACATED.

POINT II:

DEFENDANT FELONIOUSLY CHEATED PLAINTIFF BY FAILING TO PAY C.O.D. PARTS AND LABOR COSTS FOR FIVE YEARS[.] DEFENDANT COMMITTED FRAUDS UPON THE COURT BY FALSE SWEARING UNDER OATH[.] DEFENDANT FALSELY SWORE UNDER OATH THAT DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT EXIST[.] DEFENDANT SUCCESSFULLY SET A TRAP OF PLAINTIFF RESULTING IN SANCTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF; AND DEFENDANT, AFTER REFUSING TO SUBMIT THE SERVED INFORMATION SUBPOENA (BLANKS), INSTEAD, MISCHIEVOUSLY MISLED THE COURT BY SUBMITTING SUBSTITUTED INFORMATION SUBPOENAS CONCERNING A NON-PARTY INDIVIDUAL.

POINT III:

ACCORDINGLY, ALL OF DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT AND NON-COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED REGARDING VACATING THE JUDGE'S ORDERS AND MOTION DENIALS[.]

POINT IV:

FURTHER ACCORDINGLY, THE AFORESAID DEFENDANT'S MISCONDUCTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED REGARDING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT.

POINT V:

THE COMBINED MISCONDUCTS OF BOTH THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND ORDERING FURTHER DISCOVERY.

Plaintiff's arguments are clearly without merit and do not warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.