On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FM-16-1100-07.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 10, 2012 -
Before Judges Parrillo and Maven.
Defendant Carmelo Dinaro appeals from the August 25, 2011 Family Part order denying his motion to decrease child support and terminate alimony, and the August 25, 2011 order, amended September 9, 2011, granting plaintiff's motion and finding him in violation of litigant's rights for failing to comply with the terms of the Judgment of Divorce (JOD) and subsequent orders. We affirm.
The facts as adduced from the record are as follows. The parties were married in July 1994 and divorced in January 2008. The JOD incorporated a Property Settlement Agreement that contained, among other things, an obligation for defendant to pay plaintiff alimony in the amount of $1,076.92 bi-weekly and $282 bi-weekly in child support based on his stipulated annual income of $100,000.*fn1 The parties' contentious divorce proceedings were followed by equally fractious post-judgment motions for enforcement and reduction or termination of alimony and child support obligations.
Defendant, who owned and operated a ceramic tile and marble company from 1989 until shortly after the divorce in 2008, maintains that he is entitled to relief from his obligations due to a reduction of income and increase in debt following the closure of his business. In 2009, the court denied defendant's modification motion noting that no determination could be made as to any changed circumstances because defendant failed to provide proof of the financial factors that set the original amount of support or the basis for the imputed income. A similar motion to reduce the obligations was denied in 2010 and again in the instant matter, where the court found that defendant failed to establish a change in circumstances. This appeal followed.
In this submission, defendant does not explain why he considers the trial court order to have been entered in error except to generally restate his contention that his present debt and limited income constitute good cause for termination of alimony.*fn2 Without a specific claim of error supported by record references and relevant law, we cannot properly consider an appeal. See State v. Hild, 148 N.J. Super. 294, 296 (App. Div. 1977). Gleaning no cognizable specific claim of error from defendant's brief, we have no alternative but to affirm the August 25, 2011 and September 9, 2011 orders.