DEBORAH NELSON v. MARK NELSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

DEBORAH NELSON,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARK NELSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

January 14, 2014

Before Judges Simonelli and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FM-13-0568-10-C.

August J. Landi, attorney for appellant.

Deborah Nelson, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

In this matrimonial matter, defendant Mark Nelson appeals from the February 27, 2012 Dual Judgment of Divorce (DJOD), and the May 25, 2012 order, which denied his motion for reconsideration. For the following reasons, we affirm.

The trial of this matter occurred over several non-consecutive days in 2011. The trial judge entered the DJOD on February 27, 2012, and rendered an oral opinion on February 28, 2012. On August 10, 2012, defendant filed an appeal challenging nearly all of the judge's rulings. He also challenged the denial of his motion for reconsideration.

On August 27, 2013, defendant filed a motion with this court to proceed without the trial transcript. By order entered on September 30, 2013, this court denied the motion. Defendant did not provide the trial transcript.1

An appellant must provide this court with

all papers on file in the court or courts or agencies below, with all entries as to matters made on the records of such courts and agencies, the stenographic transcript or statement of the proceedings therein, and all papers filed with or entries made on the records of the appellate court.

[R. 2:5-4(a) (emphasis added).]

Defendant failed to provide the trial transcript. This deficiency prohibits a review of his challenge to the DJOD and motion for reconsideration. Without the trial transcript, we cannot determine whether the judge's factual findings and legal conclusions were "so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'" Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998). We are, thus, left with no alternative but to affirm. Cipala v. Lincoln Tech. Inst., 179 N.J. 45, 55 (2004); Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n. v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177-78 (App. Div. 2002).

1 Defendant did not even serve a request for an original and copy of the trial transcript, as required by Rule 2:5-3(a).