[brief] **EVEN ASSUMING AN ACCOUNTING IS DISCRETIONARY, THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED THAT DISCRETION IN THIS MATTER.  (Pa434-35; Pa525-26; 1T15:22 – 1T19:3; 2T23:14 – 2T27:10). **  Even in the event that the trial court was correct on a legal basis that a formal accounting is discretionary – and Plaintiff believes that it was not – the trial court should have exercised that discretion in this instance, as there are substantial --- \(^5\)  The Englewood Property sold for $850,000 on November 15, 2021, according to a search on njparcels.com.  [...], New Jersey Property Information, https://njparcels.com/sales/0215_3702_9 (last visited Nov. 6, 2023).  questions raised as to which even the most basic, fundamental underlying information is missing, and an absence of communication from Defendant in response to Plaintiff’s various requests for information concerning the disposition of Estate property.  Many substantial questions were raised in the Plaintiff’s Certifications (Pa458–65), (Pa473–82) – which also provided evidence of the existence of possessions at the Englewood Property – but the trial court summarily ignored them based upon nothing more than Defendant’s opposition Certification, whose facts were derived to a great extent on information gleaned from others, rather than from first-hand knowledge.  As discussed above, Plaintiff is a beneficiary of the Estate, and has no information as to what was sold, how much money was obtained in connection with the sales, and the disposition of the funds.  More importantly, said accounting would disclose whether any of the items sold by Defendant were not actually an asset of the Estate or Trust, as allegations of missing items have been made not only by Plaintiff, but also by his sister, [...].  (See, e.g., Pa300).  POINT V THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, IN WHICH MOTION RECORD  PLAINTIFF PROVIDED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL NOT BEFORE THE COURT ON THE RETURN DATE ON WHICH THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT.  (Pa525-26; 2T23:14 – 2T27:10).  The trial court likewise erred in denying, by order dated July 14, 2023, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  (Pa525–26).  As shown in Plaintiff’s Certifications in support of his reconsideration motion, Plaintiff furnished the trial court with certain information and documents which the trial court did not have on the return date.  (Pa458–72); (Pa473–524).  This material was not provided in connection with the order to show cause application because, as noted above, the matter was instituted solely to seek an accounting, to which Plaintiff believes he has a statutory entitlement.  When the trial court instead determined to dismiss the action with prejudice, Plaintiff wished to supplement the record before the trial court with certain information and documents, which (1) clearly demonstrate the utter dearth of information with which he had been provided by Defendant; (2) proved the existence of, among other things, the [...] memorabilia prior to the Decedent’s death; and (3) underscored numerous examples of the information needed in the requested accounting.  It is respectfully submitted that the material in the record on the motion for reconsideration rendered it utterly compelling that an accounting be ordered, in order that Plaintiff could receive the most basic information concerning the assets of the Estate and Trust and the disposition thereof.  The trial court’s determination to deny the motion for reconsideration should be reversed.