[brief] THE COURT BELOW CONSIDERED AND PROPERLY RULED THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF COMPOUNDING INTEREST.  As contended hereinabove, Appellant sought application of compounding post-judgment interest upon the [...].  In pertinent part, R. 4:42-11(a) provides:  Except as otherwise ordered by the court or provided by law, judgments, awards and orders for the payment of money, taxed costs and attorney’s fees shall bear simple interest ...  As contended hereinabove, at the lower Court Appellant vigorously argued his entitlement for compounding post-judgment interest.  After consideration of such demand, by Order dated March 4, 2024, [...] concluded that “interest on tax liens is simple interest and no compound interest” relying on N.J.S.A. §§ 54:4-67(a), 54:5-58, and 54:5-60.  (Da 155-165).  Thereafter, Appellant filed a subsequent motion (not a motion for reconsideration) renewing argument as to modification of the simple interest awarded.  Once again, by Order dated April 1, 2024, [...] considered and denied Appellant’s demand for compounding interest.  [...] concluded that “the Court is not persuaded to further listen to debate or address the matter.  The instant Motion filed by Appellant is not a Motion for Reconsideration, but rather a Motion merely seeking to relitigate an issue which had already been presented before the Court and of which, the Court had already entered a decision.  The Court came to that determination utilizing the evidence presented before it at that time, and rendered its decision based upon that information. ”  (Da 194-202).  This issue of compounding interest was not thereafter contained in Appellant’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration and should be consider as waived and/or abandoned by Appellant.  It is abundantly clear that the lower Court considered Appellant’s application and provided a basis for its denial of such request (and Appellant subsequently abandoned this issue until reviving it as part of the present appeal).  While Appellant has contended that R. 4:42-11 “allows a judge to depart from this rule,” there is nothing in the Rule that provides such authority or discretion.  Appellant now asks the Appellate Division to rely on a singular outlier case to support deviation from R. 4:42-11 and impose compounding post-judgment interest.  The case cited by Appellant, Township of West Windsor v. Nierenberg, 345 N.J.Super 472, is distinguishable from the present matter.  While this matter relates to mere post-judgment interest accruing on a law division judgment obtained by a former New Jersey attorney against his former client, Nierenberg was a condemnation award seeking to establish reasonable value for the taking of property.  Alternatively, Appellant asks the Appellate Division to adopt positions set forth in ancillary jurisdictions of Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Colorado, and/or Delaware to impose post-judgment compounding interest, as Appellant could find no other basis for such contention.  As the lower Court clearly considered Appellant’s arguments for awarding compounding post-judgment interest and rejected such relief with legal basis for said denial, this determination should not be disturbed upon appellate review.  **CONCLUSION**