PATRICIA BRINSTER v. BARRY BRINSTER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4168-09T4

PATRICIA BRINSTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BARRY BRINSTER,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

February 24, 2012

Submitted: February 8, 2012 - Decided:

Before Judges Axelrad and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County,Docket No. FM-03-791-01-X.

Michael S. Rothmel, attorney for appellant.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Patricia Brinster appeals from the March 5, 2010 order compelling her to allow her now twelve-year-old son to play travel lacrosse on a Medford-based team for the spring 2010 season, and the April 9, 2010 order denying reconsideration. She argues the court erred in rendering a decision without a plenary hearing, failed to follow the law of the case, erred in concluding defendant demonstrated changed circumstances, and failed to consider the factors enumerated in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.

Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are not persuaded by any of plaintiff's arguments. We affirm substantially for the reasons articulated by Judge Michael J. Haas in his comprehensive written memoranda accompanying both orders and in his Rule 2:5-1(b) amplification letter submitted following plaintiff's appeal. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E).

We further note that, as is clear from the record, the challenged order dealt solely with son's participation on the lacrosse team for the discrete spring 2010 season, and thus plaintiff's appeal is moot. See Plainfield v. Dep't of Health, 412 N.J. Super. 466, 483-84 (App. Div.) (holding that a court should dismiss a case as moot if the decision "can have no practical effect" on the controversy) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), certif. denied, 203 N.J. 93 (2010); Marjarum v. Twp. of Hamilton, 336 N.J. Super. 85, 92 (App. Div. 2000) (holding that courts should decline to decide cases where a judgment cannot grant any relief).