HUI-LIN WEI v. KATHARINE LAIAnnotate this Case
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. A-0
HUI-LIN WEI and SHUANG HE,
KATHARINE LAI and FANTASTIC
October 27, 2014
Submitted October 21, 2014 Decided
Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-8066-09.
Rebenack, Aronow & Mascolo, LLP, attorneys for appellants (J. Silvio Mascolo, of counsel and on the brief).
Philip R. Kaufman, attorney for respondents.
Defendant Katharine Lai appeals from a March 2, 2012 order denying her motion for reconsideration of a January 12, 2012 judgment entered after a proof hearing. We affirm.
In light of the limited record presented, this appeal warrants only brief discussion. Although defendant defaulted, there is no dispute that the proof hearing was conducted as the equivalent of a plenary trial, in which defendant had the opportunity to testify and cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses. However, on this appeal defendant failed to file the transcripts of the proof hearing. As a result, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In an August 15, 2012 order, this court denied the motion but limited the appeal to the March 2, 2012 order. We further noted that our order did not preclude plaintiff from arguing on this appeal that defendant's failure to file the transcripts warranted affirmance.1
Defendant's appellate brief does not address the merits of the reconsideration motion which resulted in the March 2, 2012 order. Moreover, her brief improperly relies on a certification from defendant dated May 22, 2013 that was not presented to the trial court, and a certification from an attorney that likewise is not part of the motion record.2 We cannot consider either of those documents. In the interest of justice, we have reviewed Judge Martin E. Kravarik's lengthy oral statement of reasons for the underlying judgment and defendant's two-page pro se reconsideration motion. The motion sought to briefly reargue some of the trial evidence, and absent a trial transcript, is insufficient to support this appeal. As a result, defendant has presented us with no basis to disturb the March 2, 2012 order denying her reconsideration motion, which is the only order properly before us on this appeal.
1 The order also dismissed the appeal of Fantastic Realty, Inc., because the corporation was not represented by counsel.
2 The certification is stamped filed April 2, 2012, and is dated March 28, 2012.