ROBIN SUE ROSEN v. PHILIP STUART ROSEN

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2574-05T12574-05T1

ROBIN SUE ROSEN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PHILIP STUART ROSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 28, 2006 - Decided December 21, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Lihotz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Bergen County, FM-2-1943-98.

Philip Stuart Rosen, appellant pro se.

Respondent Robin Sue Rosen did not submit a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Philip S. Rosen appeals from an order of December 9, 2005, denying his motion for reconsideration of an order entered on October 7, 2005, which denied various relief sought against his former wife, plaintiff Robin S. Rosen, and awarded plaintiff $855 in counsel fees.

We note at the outset that defendant did not appeal the October 7, 2005 order itself. Thus, the only matter before us is the denial of reconsideration. A denial of reconsideration stands on its own merits; it does not bring with it the matters adjudicated by the earlier order as to which reconsideration was sought. See Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455, 460-62 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 544 (2002). In denying reconsideration, Judge DeLorenzo wrote the following:

R. 4:49-2 provides that the party requesting a reconsideration must advance a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which the requesting party believes the [court] has overlooked; the defendant did not advance any issues which were not considered by the [court] and disposed of in the [court's] decision of 10/7/05; as a result, the defendant's application is denied.

Despite the judge's finding, defendant has not sought on appeal to explain why he was entitled to reconsideration. Indeed, defendant has made neither his motion for reconsideration nor his original motion part of his appendix, see R. 2:6-1(a), thereby precluding effective appellate review of the only issue properly before us: whether the motion for reconsideration was properly denied.

Nevertheless, we have opted to review the merits subsumed within defendant's sole argument on appeal, which is stated in his Table of Contents as follows:

THE JUDGE IS BIAS [sic] AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANT'S [sic]. THE FACTS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S PROPOSALS AND REQUESTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

Defendant then proceeds to set out five subsidiary issues as part of his Statement of Facts, rather than under separate point headings, as required by R. 2:6-2(a)(5). Those five issues are presented as follows:

THE 1ST ISSUE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW INVOLVES MY CLAIM THAT THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY SIGN AND RELEASE 2 IRS FORM 8322 FOR CYE 2007 AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT IN HER 9/28/05 CERTIFICATION (27a) DRAFTED BY MICHAEL SPRAGUE. IN THAT 9/28/05 CERTIFICATION, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND COOPERATION OF HER ATTORNEY, THE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT (32A) TO TRY TO HIDE HER NON-COMPLIANCE AND AVOID COURT SANCTIONS.

. . . .

THE 2ND ISSUE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW INVOLVES MY REQUEST FOR NET QUALIFIED COLLEGE EDUCATION EXPENSE INFORMATION RELATED TO OUR DAUGHTER, MALLORY.

. . . .

THE 3RD ISSUE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW INVOLVES THE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE 5/10/05 ORDER (4A) REGARDING WHO WILL GET THE DEPENDENT EXEMPTION IN CY 2 006 AND CY 2008.

. . . .

THE 4TH ISSUE I SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW DEALS WITH ESTABLISHING A FIRM DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ME WITH A DOCUMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY THAT VERIFIES MALLORY'S FULL TIME COLLEGE STATUS AND THE NUMBER OF CREDITS MALLORY IS TAKING.

. . . .

THE 5TH AND LAST ISSUE I SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW RELATES TO THE COLLECTION OF A FINE THAT WAS IMPOSED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.

Finally, defendant then restates his Argument as follows:

SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 2003 I HAVE COMPLAINED TO THE DeLORENZO COURT ABOUT REPEATED BLATANT PLAINTIFF NON-COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS. I HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD JUDGE DeLORENZO HIS REFUSAL TO CITE THE PLAINTIFF FOR THOSE VIOLATIONS AND HIS REFUSAL TO IMPOSE CONTEMPT OF COURT PENALTIES, ONLY ENCOURAGES MORE NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE PLAINTIFF. THE JUDGE IS BIASED AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANT'S [sic] AND DID NOT APPRECIATE MY CRITICISM. THE FACTS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THAT MY PROPOSALS AND REQUESTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

 
Having carefully considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order of October 7, 2005, for the reasons set forth by Judge DeLorenzo in his oral ruling of that date. In other respects, including defendant's unwarranted attack on the judge's integrity, we find defendant's arguments to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2574-05T1

December 21, 2006