SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4105-17T2

J.C.C.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

S.L.D.,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Submitted May 14, 2019 – Decided June 28, 2019

Before Judges Gilson and Natali.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Cape May County, 

Docket No. FD-05-0195-05.

Adinolfi, Molotsky, Burick & Falkenstein, PA, 

attorneys for appellant (Drew A. Molotsky, on the 

briefs).

Puff & Cockerill LLC, attorneys for respondent 

(Christine C. Cockerill, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-4105-17T2

In this non-dissolution matter,

1 defendant appeals from an April 17, 2018 

Family Part order denying reconsideration of a November 14, 2017 order, which 

amended the parties' weekly parenting time schedule with respect to their now 

fifteen-year old daughter, K.B.D. (Kathleen).2 We affirm in part, and remand in 

part to permit the court to resolve two requests for relief not addressed by the 

court in its April 17, 2018 order.

Soon after Kathleen's birth, and for much of her life, the parties have 

engaged in contentious motion practice resulting in over twenty orders 

addressing paternity, custody, parenting time, and child support issues. The 

April 17, 2018 order under review has its genesis in a June 24, 2015 application 

filed by defendant where she, and her husband, sought to relocate with Kathleen 

to South Carolina. Plaintiff opposed the June 24, 2015 application, and sought 

the following relief by way of a July 20, 2015 cross-motion: 1) to be declared 

the parent of primary residence; 2) the entry of an amended parenting time 

schedule in the event defendant relocated outside of New Jersey; 3) enforcement 

 

1 The non-dissolution or FD docket provides a mechanism for parents not 

married to each other or not seeking a divorce to address custody, parenting 

time, paternity, and child support. R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 131 (App. 

Div. 2014).

2 We employ a pseudonym for K.B.D., and initials for plaintiff and defendant, 

to protect their privacy.
3

A-4105-17T2

of the court's prior orders regarding pick up/drop off of Kathleen at school, and 

to prevent defendant from interfering with his parenting time; 4) authorizing 

plaintiff's wife and extended family to pick up Kathleen from school; 5) 

requiring defendant to pay her share of Kathleen's medical and dental expenses 

through the probation department; and 6) counsel fees. 

The court conducted an eleven-day plenary hearing from February 2016 

to November 2016, which addressed the relocation, custody, parenting time, and 

other issues raised by the parties' motion papers.3 In addition, on January 31, 

2017, the court conducted an extensive interview of Kathleen. The court issued 

three orders, dated June 28, 2017, August 16, 2017, and November 14, 2017, all 

accompanied by comprehensive written statements of reasons, which resolved 

all issues raised by the parties' June 24, 2015 and July 20, 2015 applications. 

The court's June 28, 2017 order denied defendant's application to remove 

Kathleen to South Carolina. The court also denied without prejudice plaintiff's 

request to be appointed Kathleen's parent of primary residence. In the event, 

however, defendant elected to relocate to South Carolina without Kathleen, the 

June 28, 2017 order provided that plaintiff would then be designated Kathleen's 

primary residential custodian. 

 

3 The parties have not included any of the transcripts from the plenary hearing.
4

A-4105-17T2

In its accompanying written decision, the motion judge exhaustively 

addressed all the evidence elicited at the plenary hearing, and concluded it would 

be contrary to Kathleen's best interests to relocate to South Carolina. In reaching 

its decision, the court made specific, adverse credibility findings against 

defendant. Indeed, the court stated it was "repeatedly[] struck by the impression 

that [d]efendant's desire to remove [Kathleen] [was] either pretextual or 

malicious," as if it was part of a "longstanding goal of diminishing the existence 

of [p]laintiff in [Kathleen's] and her life." 

The court continued by characterizing defendant's demeanor as 

"concerning," and commented that defendant's tone during the plenary hearing 

was "insincere . . . as if feigning kindness . . . ." The court noted that she was 

hesitant to respond to certain questions, declined to answer others because she 

did not recall, "was uncertain at conspicuously convenient times, and regularly 

hesitated and pushed back on . . . unfavorable questions . . . ." Finally, the court 

noted that defendant "frequently diverted her answers by injecting vitriolic 

anecdotes about past incidents and . . . brazenly expressed disdain toward [the] 

court's . . . parenting time orders and the intent underlying them, instead vying 

to minimize [p]laintiff's parenting time" with Kathleen.
5

A-4105-17T2

The court concluded that it was "unable to ignore the apparent agenda 

underlying . . . [d]efendant's demeanor" because it created "a serious and 

legitimate concern about the continued sustenance of the relationship with 

[Kathleen] and [p]laintiff if the child is removed to South Carolina."

Accordingly, the court determined:

In light of the extensive testimony offered during this 

litigation, there has been what appears to be an 

unequivocal pattern of attempts to alienate [p]laintiff 

from [Kathleen's] life, dating as far back as the child's 

birth. From [the] court's perspective, the best interest 

of [Kathleen] and her continued relationships and 

interactions with both of her parents, regardless of their 

ambivalence toward one another, is the guiding 

principle at the core of this decision.

In an August 16, 2017 order and written statement of reasons, the court 

again denied plaintiff's request to be designated parent of primary residence. 

The court also ordered: 1) that "either party may designate an appropriate 

individual to transport" Kathleen during parenting time, and permitted plaintiff's 

wife to pick up Kathleen during plaintiff's parenting time; 2) defendant to pay 

her portion of Kathleen's orthodontia bill, in accordance with a prior court order; 

and 3) the parties not to interfere with the other parent's court-ordered parenting 

time. The court also denied the parties' requests for attorney's fees. 
6

A-4105-17T2

Finally, in a November 14, 2017 order and accompanying written 

decision, the court set forth a revised parenting time schedule. According to that 

order, plaintiff would continue to exercise co-equal parenting time, consistent 

with the parties' recent practice. Specifically, plaintiff was permitted to exercise

parenting time weekly with Kathleen on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and 

defendant would exercise her parenting time every Monday and Tuesday. The 

November 14, 2017 parenting time order permitted overnights, and directed that 

Kathleen would spend alternate weekends with plaintiff and defendant. 

The court explained that the parenting time schedule was identical to the 

schedule followed by the parties for over a year.4 The court also reasoned that 

"in examining the record in this matter, the [c]ourt perceives no valid reason not 

to grant [p]laintiff's request, especially because having the two overnights 

consecutively will limit the back and forth of [Kathleen], . . . limit 

communication" and "disagreement between the parties, or failure to abide by 

the [c]ourt['s] [o]rder." 

 

4 The schedule followed in practice by the parties was different from the terms 

of the court's October 24, 2014 order, which provided that "[p]laintiff shall have 

overnights on . . . Tuesdays and Thursdays, or another two (2) consecutive days 

that both parties agree to, of the week that he does not have weekend parenting 

time." Plaintiff contended that defendant abruptly changed the parties' practice 

and only started following the terms of the October 24, 2014 order after 

conferring with counsel.
7

A-4105-17T2

Defendant filed a timely pro se motion for reconsideration on December 

4, 2017, which primarily challenged the parenting time decision memorialized 

in the court's November 14, 2017 order. Defendant, however, also checked off 

boxes on the application in which she requested to modify a June 19, 2012 order,

which required plaintiff to provide defendant with duplicate medical, dental, and 

prescription cards for Kathleen, and for defendant to submit unreimbursed 

medical bills to plaintiff's counsel on a bi-yearly basis. Defendant also requested 

that Kathleen "come home while [her] father is at work" and "at night before 

school," and that Kathleen be able to "get[] her medication without any issues." 

Finally, she sought an increase in child support. In support of the application, 

defendant appended an eleven-page handwritten document.

In an order filed on April 17, 2018, the court denied defendant's motion 

for reconsideration without oral argument.5 The court denied the application 

after "having considered the prior sworn testimony of both parties" and because 

 

5

 The April 17, 2018 order was signed by the court on December 11, 2017. 

There is no explanation in the record for the approximate four-month delay in 

filing the court's order. It is undisputed, however, that all parties received the 

April 17, 2018 order on April 18, 2018, when in court on a separate application,

and although a court's order should be filed promptly, see e.g., Rule 4:46-2(c) 

(mandating that summary judgment orders be "rendered forthwith"), we discern

no prejudice by the court's unexplained delay in filing the order under review.
8

A-4105-17T2

defendant failed "to demonstrate that the [c]ourt's decision was palpably 

incorrect or irrational pursuant to [Rule] 4:49-2." This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant claims that her December 4, 2017 application "was 

improperly denied without hearing or[al] argument, thereby denying [her] due 

process of law." She also maintains that the court's November 14, 2017 order 

"sua sponte . . . modified the parenting time schedule to a fully equal schedule, 

thereby unilaterally changing . . . [d]efendant's primary residential custody to a 

true shared custodial arrangement." Defendant also alleges that her December 

4, 2017 motion, in addition to seeking reconsideration of the November 14, 2017 

order, also sought other relief unaddressed by the court. We disagree with all 

of defendant's arguments to the extent they challenge the court's April 17, 2018 

order. We issue a limited remand, however, for the court to resolve two 

outstanding issues raised by defendant in her December 4, 2017 application.

We disagree with defendant's initial claim that the court committed error 

and violated her due process rights when it denied reconsideration without 

conducting oral argument. We acknowledge that litigants should be permitted 

oral argument of motions other than calendar matters and routine discovery 

applications when requested "as a matter both of due process and the appearance 

of due process." Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 306 (App. Div. 1997); 
9

A-4105-17T2

see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1.1 on R. 5:5-4 

(2019) ("[T]here is a strong presumption favoring argument of motions other 

than calendar matters and routine discovery applications.").

To that end, Rule 5:5-4(a) expressly provides:

Motions in family actions shall be governed by [Rule] 

1:6-2(b) except that, in exercising its discretion as to 

the mode and scheduling of disposition of motions, the 

court shall ordinarily grant requests for oral argument 

on substantive and non-routine discovery motions and 

ordinarily deny requests for oral argument on calendar 

and routine discovery motions.

"The discretion afforded by Rule 5:5-4(a) is designed to give the judge 'the 

option of dispensing with oral argument . . . when no evidence beyond the 

motion papers themselves and whatever else is already in the record is necessary 

to a decision.'" Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 285 (App. Div. 2010) 

(alteration in original) (quoting Fusco v. Fusco, 186 N.J. Super. 321, 328-29 

(App. Div. 1982)). "In short, it is the sole purpose of these rules to dispense 

with what is regarded as unnecessary or unproductive advocacy." Ibid. (quoting

Fusco, 186 N.J. Super. at 328-29).

However, a judge's inquiry does not end simply because the "nature of an 

issue presented can be labeled as pertaining to a substantive issue" or when "the 

parties do not agree on all facts." Id. at 286. "Other circumstances, such as the 
10 A-4105-17T2

sufficiency of the supporting facts alleged are also relevant to the exercise of 

discretion," especially "in the case of motions that seek a modification of 

financial obligations or reconsideration of a prior order because the movant must 

satisfy certain requirements before these motions are ripe for decision by the 

court." Ibid. "When the record presented to the court in support of a motion is 

deficient on its face to satisfy such requirement, oral argument does not afford 

litigants an opportunity to cure such evidentiary deficiencies." Ibid.

In accordance with Palombi, we conclude the court properly exercised its 

discretion in denying oral argument. It is clear from the court's November 14, 

2017, June 28, 2017, and August 16, 2017 written statements of reasons that 

the court was familiar with the issues raised by defendant's reconsideration 

application, having recently completed an eleven-day plenary hearing, which 

included considering the testimony of multiple witnesses, and conducting an 

interview of Kathleen. Moreover, defendant's reconsideration application was 

supported by a handwritten letter that contained nothing more than a self-serving 

narrative of the origins of the parties' acrimonious relationship. Under these 

circumstances, oral argument would have been nothing more than "unnecessary 

or unproductive advocacy." See Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. at 285 (quoting Fusco, 

186 N.J. Super. at 328-29). 
11 A-4105-17T2

Further, defendant's application failed to comply with Rule 4:49-2 as it 

did not set forth "a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which 

counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred . . . ." 

Rather, the application was an improper attempt to reargue matters resolved by 

the court's November 14, 2017 decision and order, and which were the subject 

of extensive testimony during the plenary hearing.

We also disagree with defendant's substantive argument that the court 

committed error in denying the motion for reconsideration. We first note that 

defendant appeals only from the April 17, 2018 order, and not the November 14, 

2017, June 28, 2017, or August 16, 2017 orders. See Fusco v. Bd. of Educ., 349 

N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div. 2002) (explaining that this court only 

considers judgments and orders listed in a notice of appeal).

Reconsideration is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, 

which we review for abuse of discretion. See Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. at 288-

89. "Motions for reconsideration are granted only under very narrow 

circumstances . . . ." Fusco, 349 N.J. Super. at 462. As such, reconsideration 

should be used only for those cases where "either (1) the [c]ourt has expressed 

its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or (2) it is 

obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the 
12 A-4105-17T2

significance of probative, competent evidence." Ibid. (quoting D'Atria v. 

D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)); see R. 4:49-2. 

Based upon our review of the record, it is clear that the motion judge did 

not base her decision upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or fail to 

consider probative, competent evidence. The court's decision to modify the 

parties' parenting time arrangement was the subject of testimony at the plenary 

hearing, consistent with the parties' prior practice, and grounded in Kathleen's

best interests, as clearly indicated in the court's November 14, 2017 statement 

of reasons. Accordingly, we conclude defendant failed to demonstrate the 

motion judge abused her discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.

However, while a second motion judge granted plaintiff's application for 

a reduction of child support in a May 3, 2018 order, and the court's November 

14, 2017 order establishing the parties' parenting time schedule addressed 

defendant's request that Kathleen "come home while father is at work" and "at 

night before school," it does not appear that the court resolved defendant's 

request contained in her December 4, 2017 application for modification of the 

June 19, 2012 order, or her request that plaintiff ensure Kathleen receives her 

medication "without any issues." Accordingly, the court should address these 

outstanding matters on remand.
13 A-4105-17T2

To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendant's 

remaining contentions, it is because we find they have insufficient merit to 

warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.