ALBA L. HERNANDEZ v. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6148-10T1

ALBA L. HERNANDEZ, N/K/A

ALBA PINEDA,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

December 10, 2012

Submitted August 13, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and St. John.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-893-07.

Antonio Hernandez, appellant pro se.

Menar & Menar, attorneys for respondent (Paula A. Menar, on the brief).1

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Antonio Hernandez, appeals from the July 8, 2011 order of the Family Part, issued by Judge Barry Weisberg, denying defendant's request for residential custody of his two daughters born of his former marriage to plaintiff, Alba L. Hernandez; denying his request to modify child support and be relieved of any further obligation to pay alimony; denying his request for a $27,500 credit for plaintiff's alleged deliberate disposition of marital funds; denying his request that the amount of $15,285, representing proceeds from the sale of the Clinton Avenue property in South Plainfield, be applied to the judgment entered against him; denying his request that $14, 186.70, purportedly representing child support arrears for one of his daughters, be applied to the judgment entered against him; denying his motion to consolidate two pending matters before the Family Part; and denying his request that the parties exchange insurance information.

In denying the relief defendant sought, in its entirety, Judge Weisberg found that defendant failed to attach: (1) a copy of the order or judgment from which he was seeking modification; (2) the Case Information Statement (CIS) he filed prior to the entry of the order or judgment from which he was seeking relief; and (3) a current and complete CIS. The judge also found that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing regarding the credits which he believed should be applied against the judgment entered against him. The judge also noted that the two matters for which defendant was seeking consolidation involved different parties.

On appeal, defendant fails to set forth, in accordance with Rule 2:6-2(a)(5), "appropriate point headings" from which we can determine the specific points being raised on appeal. Nor has defendant provided this court with a copy of the transcript of the proceedings. The court's order, in addition to setting forth its reasons for denying defendant's motion, notes that the reasons were also placed on the record.

Notwithstanding defendant's failure to comply with the rules governing appellate practice, we discern the essential issue on appeal is defendant's apparent overall disagreement with the trial court order. We have considered defendant's arguments in that regard and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We therefore affirm the order entered for the reasons expressed by Judge Weisberg in his July 8, 2011 order.

A

1 On August 2, 2012, we granted plaintiff's motion to vacate our February 22, 2012 order suppressing her brief. Other than the papers submitted in support of the motion, plaintiff filed no subsequent brief. We therefore treat her motion papers as her merits brief for purposes of this appeal.