September 18, 2009
PATRICIA AIELLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
DENNIS AIELLO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FM-14-762-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted July 14, 2009
Before Judges Fisher and Grall.
Plaintiff Patricia Aiello appeals from a post-judgment order entered in a matrimonial action. Her former husband, defendant Dennis Aiello, has not participated in the appeal.
On April 14, 2008, for reasons given in a statement appended to the order, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion to enforce the final judgment of divorce entered in December 2006 and enforced a post-judgment order dated August 3, 2007. Twenty-one days later, on May 5, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied for reasons given in a statement appended to an order dated October 8, 2008. Plaintiff filed her appeal on November 20, 2008, forty-three days later.
We will not address plaintiff's objections to the order of April 14, 2008. Due to the date upon which plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed, our jurisdiction to consider the merits of that order requires a showing of "good cause" for the untimely filing that plaintiff has not attempted to provide. See R. 2:4-1(a) (requiring filing of a notice of appeal within forty-five days of service of decision or notice of the action); R. 2:4-3(e) (providing for tolling while motion for reconsideration is pending); R. 2:4-4(a) (permitting extension of time upon "a showing of good cause" for a period not to exceed thirty days).
Motions for reconsideration are left to "the sound discretion" of the trial court, which is to be exercised in "the interest of justice." Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate when the initial decision has "a palpably incorrect or irrational basis" or the judge did not "consider . . . [or] appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence." Ibid. And it is proper when the claim for a different result is based on information that "could not have [been] provided on the first application." Ibid. The arguments presented by plaintiff on appeal do not address that standard, and the brief, which has no procedural history or statement of facts as required by Rule 2:6-2, does not give us a basis for concluding that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying reconsideration.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.