MARGHERITA A. KAPLAN v. RICHARD P. KAPLAN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

MARGHERITA A. KAPLAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICHARD P. KAPLAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

October 28, 2016

Submitted October 25, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1975-08.

Richard P. Kaplan, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment dissolution matter, defendant Richard P. Kaplan, who is incarcerated, appeals from the Family Part's December 9, 2014 order denying his motion for the court to reconsider the terms of the parties' final judgment of divorce and to direct various other relief relative to his allegations of fraud and civil conspiracy having been committed by his former wife, plaintiff Margherita A. Kaplan, and her attorney. On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiff and her attorney have committed various acts of fraud relating to the concealment of marital assets and took action to keep him "falsely imprisoned." Defendant filed a brief setting forth numerous, unsupported factual allegations and an appendix that contains only the order under appeal, one prior court order and two orders entered after the subject order, as well as copies of his notice of appeal and related documents.

We conclude from our review that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and in any event, defendant's failure to comply with the court's rules applicable to the contents of an appellant's brief and appendix, see R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I); R. 2:6-2(a)(5), impedes our ability to perform any appellate review. See Johnson v. Schragger, Lavine, Nagy & Krasny, 340 N.J. Super. 84, 87 n.3 (App. Div. 2001) ("the failure to supply pleadings that are essential to the proper consideration of the issues hinders our appellate review").

Affirmed.