SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3376- 21 JEFFREY DYE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DAVID WILDSTEIN and THE NEW JERSEY GLOBE, Defendants-Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted December 12, 2023

– Decided December 18, 2023 Before Judges Haas and Puglisi. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L

- 2608

- 20. Jeffrey Dye, appellant pro se. Respondents have not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM Plaintiff Jeffrey Dye appeals from the Law Divisio n's June 9, 2022 order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court 's March 10, 2021 order NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 3376

- 21

dismissing the defamation complaint plaintiff filed against defendants David Wildstein and The New Jersey Globe. Having conside red plaintiff's contentions on appeal in light of the record and the applicable law, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the trial court in its thorough oral decision rendered on June 9, 2022. In its decision, the trial court made the followin g pertinent findings of fact. On August 31, 2020, plaintiff filed his comp laint against defendants. On November 9, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dism iss the complaint pursuant

to Rule 4:6 -2(c), (d), (e) and (f). The motion was returnable on December 4,
2020. On November 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a "certifica tion in opposition to [defendants'] motion." In the certification, plain tiff stated, "I don't think that this case should be dismissed." However, plaintiff did no t address the merits of any of defendants' arguments. Instead, he complain ed that he was having a hard time focusing on the case due to personal issues an d asked "for an extension to obtain an attorney due to [his] hardships along wit h this COVID-19 Pandemic." The trial court sent the parties a notice by email , which extended the return date to January 6, 2021 in order to give plaintiff time to retain an attorney. However, plaintiff did not appear at oral argument on that date. The court3 A- 3376

- 21

rescheduled oral argument for February 10, 2021, an d again sent the parties a notice of the new date by email. Plaintiff did not appear at the February 10 argume nt. The trial court waited another month and when plaintiff filed no fu rther response, it rendered its decision dismissing plaintiff's complaint on Ma rch 10, 2021. The court found that the complaint had to be dismissed because of t he statute of limitations and problems with the service of the complaint. 1 The court sent an order confirming the decision to the parties. Pursuant to Rule 4:49-2, a motion for reconsiderati on "shall be served not later than [twenty] days after service of the judgm ent or order upon all parties
. . . ." "Neither the parties nor the court may . . . enlarg e the time specified by . . . [Rule] 4:49-2." R. 1:3 -4(c). Plaintiff did not file his motion for reconsideration of the March 10, 2021

or der until May 2, 2022. In his notice of motion, pl aintiff did not contest or even address the substantive reasons for the trial court's dismissal of his

1 Plaintiff has not provided us with a copy of the Ma rch 10, 2021 transcript which set forth the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision to dismiss plaintiff's comp laint. Therefore, we rely upon the summary of the basis for that decision the cour t provided on June 9, 2022.4 A- 3376

- 21

complaint. Instead, plaintiff merely stated that h e "wasn't given the right to be heard" prior to the court's decision. On June 9, 2022, the trial court held oral argumen t on plaintiff's motion

. During his lengthy colloquy with the court, plainti ff initially denied ever receiving the court's emails concerning the scheduling of his motion. However, he later admitted that he did not always check or r ead his emails. Plaintiff did not argue that the court's decision was incorrect o r had been based on a faulty legal analysis. He merely complained that he had b een unable to retain an attorney to help him si nce the time he filed his complaint. At the conclusion of argument, the trial court ren dered a comprehensive oral decision denying plaintiff's motion for recons ideration. The court found that plaintiff received notice of all of the court proceedings and had a full opportunity to respond to defendants' motion to dis miss the complaint. The court further found that even though plaintiff had reviewed its March 10, 2021 decision dismissing the complaint, plaintiff had st ill not identified any error in the decision that might warrant reconsideration. The court also noted that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was approxim ately one year out of time under Rule 4:49

- 2. Accordingly, the court denied plaintiff's motion.5 A- 3376

- 21

On appeal, plaintiff argues that "the trial court erred in denying [his] motion for reconsideration." We disagree. We review the denial of a motion for reconsideratio n to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 389 (App. Div. 1996). "Reconsideration cannot be u sed to expand the record and reargue a motion." Capital Fin. Co. of Delawar e Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi , 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App. Div. 2008). A motio n for reconsideration is meant to "seek review of an order based on the evid ence before the court on the initial motion . . . not to serve as a vehicle to introduce ne w evidence in order to cure an inadequacy in the motion record." Ibid. For these reasons, reconsideration should only be g ranted in "those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which eithe r 1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irr ational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence[.]" Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 384 (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 4 01-02 (Ch. Div. 1990)). The refore, we have held that "the magnitude of the err or cited must be a gamechanger for reconsideration to be appropriate." Pa lombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010).6 A- 3376

- 21

Applying these principles, we discern no basis for disturbing the tri al court's well-reasoned decision to deny plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to present arguments in op position to the merits of defendants' motion to dismiss his complaint; he simply failed to do so. Even on appeal, he does not offer any basis for overturn ing the court's determination. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that th e court properly denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and we affi rm substantially for the reasons expressed in the court's June 9, 2022 decision. Affirmed.