March 29, 2007
DANA HEADLEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
MICHAEL H. MATTHYS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Cape May County, Docket No. FV-05-211-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Telephonically Argued March 7, 2007
Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.
Defendant Michael K. Matthys appeals from a final domestic violence restraining order issued by the Family Part on December 19, 2005. We affirm. After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, we are satisfied that defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Plaintiff's testimony describing defendant's brutal physical attack and the resulting injuries sustained therefrom amply support the trial judge's factual findings.
FUENTES, J.A.D., concurring.
I am compelled to write separately to comment on defense counsel's utter disregard for the most rudimentary requirements of the rules governing appellate practice in this State.
Defendant's "brief" did not include a recitation of the material facts as required by R. 2:6-2(a)(4); the narrative following the argument point headings was devoid of analysis, and failed to cite a single case in support of the conclusions advocated therein, in violation of R. 2:6-2(a)(5).
Under these circumstances, we were forced to scour through the trial record, and conduct our own independent research in an effort to determine whether any of defendant's so-called arguments had any merit. Defense counsel's failure to adhere to this court's procedural requirements is unacceptable, and presents clear grounds for the imposition of sanctions under R. 2:9-9. See Miraph Enters. Inc. v. Bd. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 150 N.J. Super. 504, 507-08 (App. Div. 1977).
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.