CHENG C. TAN v. PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1666-11T4

CHENG C. TAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PLANNING BOARD OF THE

CITY OF JERSEY CITY,

Defendant-Respondent.

___________________________

December 3, 2012

Submitted November 15, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Simonelli and Koblitz.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-2230-11.

Cheng C. Tan, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this prerogative writs matter, plaintiff Cheng C. Tan appeals from the October 26, 2011 Law Division final judgment in favor of defendant Board of the City of Jersey City (Board). We affirm.

In 2010, plaintiff filed a petition with the Board pursuant to Article VIII.D. of the Tidewater Basin Redevelopment Plan (Plan), seeking to amend the Plan to accommodate his proposal to renovate his building. After three hearings, the Board passed a resolution recommending some of the amendments plaintiff sought but not all of them (the 2010 resolution).

Plaintiff did not file a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the 2010 resolution. Instead, in 2011, he filed a second petition with the Board, apparently seeking the same relief as the first petition. After a hearing, the Board passed a resolution denying the petition based on the doctrine of res judicata (the 2011 resolution).

Plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, challenging the 2011 resolution. The 2010 and 2011 resolutions and the transcripts from all hearings before the Board were submitted to Judge Sarkisian. The judge relied on these documents in his October 20, 2011 oral decision upholding the Board's decision. Plaintiff has failed to include these documents in his appendix.

A party on appeal must provide this court with "all papers on file in the court . . . below," R. 2:5-4(a), and "such other parts of the record, . . . as are essential to the proper consideration of the issues[.]" R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I). Failure to do so renders our review on the merits impossible, leaving us no alternative but to affirm. Society Hill Condo. Ass'n. v. Society Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177-78 (App. Div. 2002).

Affirmed.