BHAAVAN MEHTA v. JAGRUTI MEHTA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

BHAAVAN MEHTA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAGRUTI MEHTA,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

December 12, 2013

 

Submitted September 3, 2013 Decided

 

Before Judges Alvarez and Maven.

 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FM-09-1498-12.

 

Law Group, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Christopher C. Chin, on the brief).

 

Jagruti Mehta, respondent pro se.

 

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff appealsfrom an October 14, 2011 enforcement order. For the reasons set forth below the appeal is dismissed.

On October 14, 2011, a Union County trial court judge granted defendant's motion to enforce litigant's rights, and ordered plaintiff to comply with a prior court order to return defendant's jewelry within thirty days. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that order was denied on November 28, 2011. On that same date, the case was transferred to Hudson County. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion in Hudson County seeking reconsideration of the October 14, 2011 order. On February 17, 2012, the court denied the motion.

This appeal ensued.1 Procedural errors foreclose our review of this appeal. Appeals from final judgments must be taken within forty-five days of their entry. R.2:4-1(a); Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J.517, 540 (2011). Plaintiff filed the Notice of Appeal on March 22, 2012, more than 120 days after the entry of the October 14, 2011 order. Plaintiff did not file a motion to extend the time for filing the appeal. R.2:4-4. As this appeal is significantly out of time, it is dismissed.

Dismissed.2

1 Plaintiff's notice of appeal and case information statement indicate an intent to also appeal the November 28, 2011 and February 17, 2012 orders. Because plaintiff did not brief any legal argument or address any basis for our review of those orders we deem any claims related thereto to have been waived and abandoned. See Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4 on R. 2:6-2 (2014); see also Gormley v. Wood-El, 422 N.J. Super. 426, 437 n.3 (App. Div. 2011), leave to appeal granted, 210 N.J. 25 (2012).

2 We reserved ruling on defendant's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's appendix pending the resolution of this appeal. M-007862-11, Aug. 30, 2012. In light of our determinations herein, we dismiss the motion as moot.