SAMUEL CURRIE v. JACONDA WAGNER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3011-08T23011-08T2

SAMUEL CURRIE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JACONDA WAGNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________

 

Submitted December 14, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Baxter and Coburn.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Essex County, Docket No. SC-2631-08.

Jaconda Wagner, appellant pro se.

Samuel Currie, respondent pro se, has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this Special Civil Part case, the parties went to trial

and plaintiff obtained a judgment for $750.16 and dismissal of defendant's counterclaim. The judgment was entered on September 30, 2008. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on October 16, 2008. For some reason that is not apparent from the record, the motion was not decided until January 30, 2009, on which date it was denied. Defendant filed her notice of appeal on February 24, 2009, stating that the appeal was from the "Order entered on January 30, 2009." The notice of appeal was timely with respect to the judgment because of the tolling provision contained in Rule 2:4-3(e).

On appeal, defendant makes no argument addressed to the denial of her new trial motion. Her only argument concerns the judicial actions taken up to the entry of judgment. In that respect, she argues that she was prejudiced by the denial of her request for discovery (which was not made until the trial was almost over), and that she had a valid claim under the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20, which was not given consideration by the judge.

After carefully reviewing the record and brief, we are satisfied that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and that the trial judge's judgment is based on findings of fact that are adequately supported by the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). We add the following comments.

Appeals may only be taken from judgments or orders. Do-Wop Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001). And it is only the judgments or orders designated in the notice of appeal which are subject to review. See Sikes v. Twp. of Rockaway, 269 N.J. Super. 463, 465-66 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b. 138 N.J. 41, 42 (1994). As noted above, here the notice of appeal, although timely, refers only to the order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Therefore, defendant is not entitled to review of the arguments offered in her brief, which solely concern the trial rulings.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3011-08T2

December 29, 2009