[brief] THE TRIAL COURT’S DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT WAS NOT A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION  SUFFICIENT TO REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION  Plaintiff argues that the trial court’s order committed “reversible error” in failing to hold oral argument on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.  Specifically, the failure to hold oral argument on a motion, even if a substantive motion, is not automatically reversible error as Plaintiff suggests.  See Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J.Super. 274 (App.Div. 2010) (“A review of the issues presented and the circumstances in each of the motions here shows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the motions without oral argument. ”).  Furthermore, as a practical matter, Plaintiff did not expressly request oral argument.  Plaintiff’s own motion papers contained the following reference:  “REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: No, unless opposition is filed. ”  See Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion [emphasis added]  P023a.  Moreover, Plaintiff made no request for oral argument in his reply papers even though opposition had been filed.  See Plaintiff’s Reply, P244a-P251a.  Importantly, when the trial court issued its order, Plaintiff did not seek reconsideration and oral argument at that time, choosing instead to file this appeal.  Furthermore, the Statement of Reasons by the trial court shows a clear understanding by the trial court of the arguments presented by counsel.  Importantly, the trial court spent 5.5 pages of its Statement of Reasons outlining Plaintiff’s position on the motion in great detail.  Thus, given the length of the papers filed, and the length of the court’s Statement of Reasons, the decision to hold oral argument would have been a waste of judicial resources.  Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that oral argument would have changed the result.  Additionally, the cases relied upon by Plaintiff are distinguishable.  Notably, all three cases involved motions for summary judgment, and in all three cases, the trial court failed to adequately set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under the specific rules governing summary judgment.  In *Raspantini v. Arocho* (364 N.J.Super. 528 [App.Div. 2003]), the motion at issue was for summary judgment, not a peripheral motion involving attorney’s fees.  *Id.*  Furthermore, this Court held that the failure to include any findings of fact or conclusions of law required the reversal, noting that “we might, under different circumstances, find that the judge's refusal to entertain oral argument was insufficient to require reversal. ”  *Id.*  Similarly, in *Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. Checchio* (335 N.J. Super. 495 [App.Div. 2000]), the trial court was faced with a motion for summary judgment and a complete lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Therein, this Court noted that this failure was in violation of R. 4:46-2 relating to the requirements of trial courts on motions for summary judgment.  In *LNVN Funding, L.L.C. v. Colvell* (42 N.J. Super. 1, 5 [App.Div. 2011]), the court was again considering the trial court’s determination of a motion for summary judgment.  Importantly, this Court held that “[w]e need not consider whether the denial of oral argument in itself warrants reversal, given that we find a reversal is required on other grounds. ”  *Id.*  In sum, the record contains no explicit request for oral argument by Plaintiff and the cases relied upon by Plaintiff are inapposite.  The trial court’s decision to not hold oral argument is not reversible error.