[brief] THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL FEE CLAIMED BASED ON ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS AND EQUITABLE REQUIREMENTS UNDER R. 4:42(9)(a)(2) (Trial Court Order and Opinion dated August 31, 2022, Da271).  A.  The Trial Court’s denial of the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s legal fee claim was not erroneous  The Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order requiring submissions on the legal fee award determination overlooks critical facts and mischaracterizes the Plaintiff’s actions.  In response to the court’s July 13, 2021, Letter Order, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff did not submit the required written submissions by the specified deadline of September 30, 2021.  While it is true that the Plaintiff’s initial submission was delayed, this delay was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.  (Da273).  Hurricane Ida’s impact on [...]’s (the Plaintiff’s former attorney) office in [...], resulted in significant damage and prevented access to necessary files and documents until October 14, 2021.  (Da273).  In consideration of the extraordinary circumstances described above, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit their response beyond the initial deadline of September 30, 2021.  Plaintiff’s failure to submit on time was not intentional.  Plaintiff appealed to the Court for an extension of the deadline, which was granted.  (Da274).  Despite these challenges, the Plaintiff and [...] diligently sought to comply with the court’s order and submitted their position via letter on November 11, 2021, stating that Plaintiff’s position was to adopt the fee application previously put before [...] and this court.  (Da273).  Subsequently, at a conference with the court on December 3, 2021, the Defendant raised objections to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s submission.  In response, the court granted the Plaintiff an additional ten days to supplement their submission, which the Plaintiff promptly did on December 13, 2021.  (Da274).  Although Plaintiff indeed resubmitted the previously filed motion in support of legal fees, it is important to note that Plaintiff adhered to the directives outlined in this Court's Letter Order dated July 13, 2021.  The Letter Order specifically requested that parties state their "respective positions."  Plaintiff's stance is grounded in the belief that every legal action undertaken was wholly justified and necessary, as articulated in the motion.  (Da274).  Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, the Plaintiff’s submissions were made in good faith and in accordance with the court’s directives.  The plaintiff’s position, as articulated in their submissions, aligns with the requirements outlined in the court’s Letter Order and addresses the concerns raised by the Appellate Division.  (Da274).  In light of these facts, the Defendant’s appeal and argument that the Trial Court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s legal fee claim lacks merit and should be denied.  The Plaintiff made genuine efforts to comply with court orders and provided substantive submissions addressing the legal fee award determination, as required by the court and the Appellate Division.  CONCLUSION