May 16, 2007
MARYBETH LONG JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
HOWARD STERN, JOEL STEIGER, BARRY CROLAND, NORMAN TANENBAUM, A. CREW SCHIELKE, JR., ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND TRADING AS STERN, STEIGER, CROLAND, TANENBAUM, & SCHIELKE; AND J.H. COHN & COMPANY, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND ALBERT PARZIALE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, L-470-98.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 7, 2007
Before Judges S.L. Reisner and Seltzer.
Plaintiff, Marybeth Long Johnson, appeals from a trial court order dated October 14, 2005, denying her motion to vacate summary judgment orders dated January 8, 2001, and August 30, 2001, in favor of defendants Howard Stern, Joel Steiger, Barry Croland, Norman Tanenbaum, A. Crew Schielke, Jr., the law firm of Stern Steiger Croland Tanenbaum & Schielke, the accounting firm of J.H. Cohn & Company, and Albert Parziale. We affirm.
As a result of her dissatisfaction with the outcome of a matrimonial action, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her former attorneys and accountants. Judge Cramp granted summary judgment dismissing her complaint. In a forty-two page unpublished opinion, we affirmed the dismissal of her complaint. Johnson v. Stern, Nos. A-0795-01 and A-4459-01 (App. Div. Feb. 13, 2004). We denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in an order filed on April 5, 2004.
On or about August 24, 2005, Johnson filed a motion in the trial court to vacate the same orders that were the subject of her unsuccessful appeal, pursuant to Rule 4:50[-1](f), "for Fraud Upon the Court." Her motion was supported by a lengthy certification that essentially sought to re-argue the merits of her earlier appeal. In a cogent oral opinion set forth on the record on October 14, 2005, Judge Langlois denied the motion, concluding that plaintiff was attempting to re-raise issues already decided in her earlier appeal and that in any event the motion was untimely.
We conclude that plaintiff's arguments on this appeal are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Langlois' opinion.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.