On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, FM-19-307-1999.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Coburn, Axelrad and R. B. Coleman.
Defendant, Shaukat Ali, appeals from a post-divorce order, dated April 21, 2006, which: (1) quashed the subpoena commanding the appearance of Abraham Akselrad, defendant's former attorney; (2) requested that defendant sign and return to David B. Wasserman prior to Friday, April 21, 2006, a letter addressed to the Thrift Savings Plan and delivered to defendant in the presence of the court; (3) required counsel for plaintiff to deliver to the court within thirty days an accounting as to moneys received or ordered paid from defendant for counsel fees in this litigation; (4) recognized that Anila Ali, daughter of the parties, is now an adult and accordingly directed that, if defendant has things he wishes to discuss concerning his daughter, he shall discuss them with her; and (5) required defendant to pay plaintiff, within thirty days of the order, $3,742.20, representing moneys owed to her as reimbursement for eighty percent of college expenses of their daughter, as previously ordered by the court on October 4, 2005. We affirm the order from which defendant has appealed. We decline to address issues raised by defendant's appellate brief that concern matters unrelated to the April 21, 2006, order.
In his appellate brief, defendant purported to raise twenty-two points of error. Not only does defendant fail to support such points of error with any semblance of a cogent argument, but most of those points deal with issues and matters beyond the order currently under appeal. Some seemingly seek to relitigate matters arising from the December 31, 2002, judgment of divorce or previously decided in an earlier appeal. Ali v. Ali, No. A-3461-03T5 and A-5135-03T5 (App. Div. September 30, 2005). Defendant has also failed to provide either a concise procedural history of this matter or a concise statement of facts. R. 2:6-2. Although we would be justified in dismissing the appeal, we have sifted through defendant's appellate brief and we have given due consideration to what we could glean might be germane arguments. Based upon our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm the order on appeal substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial judge. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998). The remaining arguments are extraneous and are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...