March 1, 2011
MANUEL B. OASIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
GEORGIOUS H. MAKROPOULOS AND PARTHANA VANGELIS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-5414-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 16, 2011 - Decided Before Judges Cuff and Simonelli.
Plaintiff Manuel Oasin appeals from the December 3, 2009 Law Division order, which denied his motion to dismiss all claims and/or defenses of defendants Georgious Makropoulos and Parthana Vangelis with prejudice. We affirm.
The inadequacy of plaintiff's appendix, and his failure to submit
entire transcripts of all of the proceedings below, make
it difficult to discern his challenge in this appeal.*fn1
From what we can glean from the papers submitted, it appears
that on February 28, 2008, plaintiff obtained a default judgment
against defendants in the amount of $175,000 plus costs, and recorded
it as a lien on April 8, 2008. Defendants apparently filed a motion to
vacate the default judgment because by order dated June 25, 2009 (the
June 25 order),*fn2 the court vacated the default
judgment and permitted defendants to file a dispositive motion.
On August 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 1:13-7(b)(4) to set aside the June 25 order. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff then filed a motion pursuant to Rule 4:49-2 to alter or amend the June 25 order. By order dated October 22, 2009 (the October 22 order), the trial judge vacated the recorded default judgment and granted summary judgment to defendants, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
On November 6, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 4:49-2 to dismiss defendants' claims and/or defenses with prejudice. He argued that the entire controversy doctrine applied, and thus, the judge erred in granting summary judgment. He also argued he was seeking reconsideration of the June 25 order. However, the trial judge treated the motion as one for reconsideration of the October 22 order granting summary judgment.*fn3 Emphasizing that she had already addressed the entire controversy issue "a number of times," the judge found no basis for reconsideration and denied the motion. This appeal followed.
In his merits brief, plaintiff appears to challenge the October 22
order because he asks this court to "reverse the summary judgment in
favor of the defendants based upon the application of the law of the
case doctrine and the entire controversy doctrine; and, restore
plaintiff's default judgments against the defendants."*fn4
However, plaintiff's notice of appeal states that he is only
appealing from the December 3, 2009 order, which denied his motion for
reconsideration. Thus, his challenge to the October 22 order granting summary judgment is not
properly before us. W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltd., 397
N.J. Super. 455, 458 (App. Div. 2008).
Assuming plaintiff's merits brief addresses the December 3, 2009 order, we conclude that his arguments utterly lack merit and warrant no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).