FRANK VITALE v. DIANE GOODMAN

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3959-05T13959-05T1

FRANK VITALE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DIANE GOODMAN,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 20, 2007 - Decided April 5, 2007

Before Judges Coburn and Axelrad.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County,

FD-13-566-05B.

Mark S. Guralnick, attorney for appellant.

Amdur, Maggs & Shor, attorneys for respondent

(Marguerite A. Maggs, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Frank Vitale, sued defendant, Diane Goodman, claiming that he was a psychological parent of her two children and therefore entitled to court-ordered visitation. After a twelve-day trial, Judge Ronald Lee Reisner rejected the claim, finding that plaintiff failed to prove he had lived with the children in the same household or had performed parental functions to a significant degree. Following additional proceedings, Judge Reisner gave defendant a counsel fee award of $68,485.34. Plaintiff appeals.

In a matter such as this, our scope of review is quite limited. The governing principles of law with respect to the substantive claim are set forth, as the judge and the parties recognize, in V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 222-27 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926, 121 S. Ct. 302, 148 L. Ed. 2d 243 (2000), and the judge applied those principles to the facts as he found them to be. Of course, we must decline plaintiff's belated suggestion that we hold that decision of our Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. See, e.g., Micheve, L.L.C. v. Wyndham Place, 370 N.J. Super. 524, 536 (App. Div. 2004); RSB Lab. Servs., Inc. v. BSI Corp., 368 N.J. Super. 540, 560 (App. Div. 2004).

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that the judgment is based on findings of fact which are adequately supported by evidence, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), and on a sound application of the relevant principles of law. Therefore, we affirm substantially for the reasons given by the judge in his thorough and well-reasoned opinions.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-3959-05T1

April 5, 2007