MR.Y. PARK v. LINDENWOLD CENTER, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-3981-16T4

MR. Y. PARK AND LYDIA
PARK D/B/A PARK CLEAN
MACHINE INC. and Z-ZONE
OUTLET, INC.,

        Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LINDENWOLD CENTER, LLC,

     Defendant-Respondent.
_______________________________

              Argued April 23, 2018 – Decided May 10, 2018

              Before Judges Sumners and Moynihan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Camden County, Docket No.
              L-0156-16.

              Jo-Leo W. Carney-Waterton argued the cause for
              appellant.

              Adam Nachmani argued the cause for respondent
              (Sirlin Lesser & Benson, PC, attorneys; Adam
              Nachmani, of counsel and on the brief).


PER CURIAM

        In this commercial leasing dispute, plaintiffs appeal a Law

Division order dismissing their motion for reconsideration of an
order granting defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint

with prejudice for failure to provide discovery.                   The crux of

plaintiffs' appeal is that the trial judge failed to provide a

statement of reasons for his decision as required by Rule 1:7-

4(a).   The order does not state that the reasons for the decision

are set forth on the record.

      At argument before us, plaintiff's counsel represented that

after learning his reconsideration motion was denied he was advised

by the judge's chambers that there was no decision placed on the

record detailing the reasons for the denial of his motion.                  Upon

our inquiry, defendant's counsel confirmed he was not aware that

the   judge   placed   an   oral    decision    on   the   record.       These

representations are mirrored by plaintiff's amended notice of

appeal, which provides there was no verbatim record or written

decision of the court's decision.              We nonetheless sua sponte

examined   the   court's    records   and   learned    from    a    CourtSmart

recording that the judge carefully articulated his reasons for

denying plaintiffs' motion.

      Given   the   totality   of   the   circumstances,      we   accept   the

parties' representations that they were not aware that the judge

placed his oral decision on the record.           In doing so, we are not

critical of the judge's chambers based upon these representations;

for all we know it could have been a good faith misunderstanding.

                                      2                                A-3981-16T4
That said, we conclude the best course of action is to dismiss

this appeal without prejudice in order to allow plaintiff the

opportunity to obtain a transcript of the judge's decision and

determine whether they have grounds for an appeal.   See R. 2:8-2.

To avoid an untimely delay, any new notice of appeal must be filed

within forty-five days from the date of this decision.1

     Dismissed without prejudice.   We do not retain jurisdiction.




1
   In any new appeal, plaintiff should be mindful to provide a
complete record of the papers considered by the trial court as
required by Rule 2:5-4(a).

                                3                          A-3981-16T4