[brief] (Pa 76 – 78).  On February 3, 2023, following oral argument, the trial court entered an order denying Plaintiff’s motions to reinstate, seal, and for summary judgment, after determining that it had no jurisdiction over the matter.  (Pa 4, Da 53).  On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking entry of an “order for the court to file a final appealable order based on the issues contained in Plaintiff’s 450 Motion filed on September 6, 2023”.  (Da 47, Pa 100 - 107).  On March 29, 2023, the trial court entered an order denying this motion, noting that the orders were all final appealable orders pursuant to R. 2:2-3. (the “March 29th Order”) (Pa 5).  On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the March 29th Order, based upon the trial court’s alleged failure to address fraud upon the court.  The motion also asked the court to “provide a hearing for [...]’s automatic standing to seek suppression of evidence in violation of the New Jersey Constitution” (Da 49).  By Order dated May 25, 2023 (the “May 25th Order”), the trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the March 29th Order, finding that Plaintiff was essentially seeking reconsideration of the Court’s prior orders, and that Plaintiff did not meet the standard for reconsideration under Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996).  (Pa 6).  Twenty-eight days later, on June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration “of the Court’s May 25 denial of the April 24, 2023, Motion to Vacate”.  Plaintiff’s filing did not include a notice of motion.  (Pa 108 – 126).  The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on August 15, 2023 (the August 15th Order”) (Pa 7, Da52).  Instead of demonstrating how the trial court had jurisdiction to overturn an order of dismissal in federal court, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argued how decisions rendered by Federal District Court Judges [...], [...] and [...], in other cases pending in federal court, as well as decisions in unrelated foreclosure actions filed in New Jersey Superior Court, were wrong.  The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on both procedural and substantive grounds and set forth the basis for its decision in its Statement of Reasons, which Plaintiff did not include in his appendix.  Procedurally, the trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion because it was filed out of time, beyond the twenty-day period in R. 4:49-2.  Substantively, the trial court found that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden under R. 4:49-2.  As noted by the trial court, “[e]ven evaluating plaintiff’s motion on the merits, however, [...] does not address how this Court has jurisdiction over the matter he is attempting to reinstate, how that decision was reached on a palpably irrational basis or introduce any new evidence that the Court did not have when deciding the previous motions. ” (Da 55).  Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on September 28, 2023, and an Amended Notice of Appeal on October 30, 2023.  (Da 56 and Da 59).  Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Appeal (Da 59), as well as his Case Information Statement (Pa 308) confirm that he is only appealing from the Court’s August 15th Order.  **STANDARD OF REVIEW**