MICHELE STAMATIOU v. NICKOLAOS A. STAMATIOU

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

MICHELE STAMATIOU,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NICKOLAOS A. STAMATIOU,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF KAREN K. SAMINSKI, ESQ.,

Appellant.

__________________________________________

January 15, 2014

Submitted January 7, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FM-09-1075-12C.

Karen Kirchoff Saminski, appellant pro se (Thomas Sidoti, on the brief).

Respondents have not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In August 2011, plaintiff Michele Stamatiou retained appellant Karen Kirchoff Saminski, Esq., to represent her in divorce litigation with her husband, defendant Nickolaos A. Stamatiou. Saminski filed a complaint on plaintiff's behalf in October 2011, and appeared at an early settlement panel (ESP) on plaintiff's behalf in June 2012. By the time the ESP proceeding occurred, Saminski's relationship with plaintiff had begun to deteriorate. A substitution of attorney was executed but, because the parties had participated in an ESP proceeding, Saminski could not be relieved as counsel without obtaining leave of court. R. 5:3-5(d).

In September 2012, Saminski moved to be relieved. The motion was denied on November 9, 2012; the judge's order directed the parties to appear for economic mediation and a conference on November 26, 2012.

On November 19, 2012, Saminski wrote to the trial judge, claiming the November 9 order was not received by her until that day and seeking an adjournment of the November 26 proceedings. On November 19, 2012, Saminski also wrote to plaintiff to advise the motion to be relieved was denied. Among other things, Saminski seemed to state in the letter that if plaintiff did not communicate with her, her firm would be unable to appear for the November 26 proceedings.1 Saminski further stated that "[i]f you do not show us the courtesy of communicating with us and we appear unnecessarily, you will be billed for the appearance as well."

Neither Saminski nor anyone from her firm appeared in court on November 26, 2012. Plaintiff advised the judge that she was willing to represent herself; in the proceedings that followed later that day, the parties settled their differences and were divorced. Because Saminski did not appear as required by the November 9, 2012 order, the judge imposed a sanction of $250.

Saminski appeals the order imposing the $250 sanction on her, arguing the judge erred in "implicitly finding [her] in contempt of court, without affording [her] due process and holding a contempt hearing pursuant to Rule 1:10-2."

Saminski's appeal is without merit because she misconstrues the nature of the sanction. The judge imposed the sanction because of Saminski's failure to appear pursuant to Rule 1:2-4. The judge was not required to give Saminski notice before sanctioning her failure to appear nor was the judge required to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning the propriety of the sanction.

We further observe that Saminski wrote twice to the trial judge seeking reconsideration. In both letters, Saminski acknowledged that she was aware of the November 26 conference and her obligation to appear, offering only inconsequential reasons for her failure to attend. In the first of these letters, dated November 28, 2012, Saminski blamed her failure to appear on plaintiff's alleged failure to respond to her November 19, 2012 letter. Saminski recognized in the letter her obligation to appear, noting only that "[w]hen [plaintiff] did not communicate with us . . . we did not appear because we could not assist the [c]ourt in any way." In the second letter, dated December 11, 2012, Saminski accused the attorney who was assigned by the court to mediate the matter of "unethical conduct." Again, Saminski recognized that she consciously did not appear for the November 26 proceedings, and did not send another attorney in her place, because plaintiff did not respond to her earlier letter. In the last sentence of the letter, Saminski requested that the sanction be vacated but also stated she had "no intention to file a motion for reconsideration." Because Saminski filed no motion for reconsideration, the trial judge quite correctly entered no order regarding Saminski's informal request.

Saminski's arguments are of insufficient merit to warrant any further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

1That is our interpretation. The sentence in question, which we quote precisely as written, ambiguously states: "We do not have any notice of scheduled mediation on November 26, 2012 and therefore, unless we hear form [sic] you will be unable to appear."