SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3267-21 

BUKURIE LLUGANI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

ARBEN TOSKA, 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

________________________ 

Submitted April 24, 2024 – Decided July 30, 2024 

Before Judges Vernoia and Gummer. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, 

Docket No. FD-04-0814-19.

Hark & Hark, attorneys for appellant (Michael J. Collis, 

on the brief). 

Respondent has not filed a brief. 

PER CURIAM 

Plaintiff Bukurie Llugani appeals from a July 12, 2022 order granting the 

motion of defendant Arben Toska to reduce his child-support obligation. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-3267-21

Plaintiff challenges only the denials of her motions for the appointment of a 

forensic accountant. Perceiving no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

The parties have a child who was born in 2016. Defendant's weekly childsupport obligation initially was set at $319.1

 In September 2020, defendant 

moved for a reduction in his child-support obligation based on his expenses 

associated with two other children who were in his custody full-time and a 

purported loss of income due to unemployment and the dissolution of his 

"clothing sales" business allegedly caused by the pandemic. In the certification 

he submitted in support of the motion, defendant asserted the business had 

"closed," having had "zero revenue since March [2020]," and that he had not 

been paid by the business since the May 29, 2020 pay period. 

On December 3, 2020, the parties placed on the record a "consent 

agreement," in which they agreed to temporarily reduce defendant's weekly 

child-support obligation to $108 and "to conduct discovery, which includes 

interrogatories, request for admissions, document requests, and depositions." 

The court set deadlines for the service of discovery requests and responses, 

1

 We take that number from a decision the Family Part judge placed on the 

record on May 18, 2022. In a certification submitted in support of his 

modification motion, defendant represented he had been paying $296 weekly in 

child support pursuant to a May 16, 2019 order. We were not provided with a 

copy of that order. 
3 A-3267-21

scheduled a follow-up conference, and asked counsel to submit a form of order. 

Plaintiff did not include a copy of that order in the appellate record. 

On April 29, 2021, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's opposition to 

his motion due to her alleged failure to comply with discovery orders and to 

compel her to produce a case information statement and certain documents. 

Plaintiff cross-moved for the appointment of "a forensic accountant for a 

business valuation/cash flow analysis of [d]efendant's business, RUCS4, LLC," 

with defendant paying the accountant's fees or, alternatively, each party paying 

fifty percent of those fees. In support of her cross-motion, plaintiff submitted

her certification in which she asserted a review of defendant's business creditcard statements and checking-account statements demonstrated defendant had 

not been truthful to the court about his business being dissolved. She 

highlighted the amount of money deposited and withdrawn from his business 

checking-account between January 2020 and March 2021 and the charges on his 

business credit-card statements that seemed to indicate the business was still 

operating. Defendant submitted a certification in reply; we were not provided 

with a copy of that certification. 

During oral argument on June 24, 2021, defense counsel represented that 

"not one iota of proof shows any money from the business going to [defendant]" 
4 A-3267-21

and "[h]is cousin is running the business." The judge held that he was "not 

ordering a forensic accountant right now." The judge explained: 

My recollection from the prior motion . . . was that there 

was an ownership issue involving the corporation . . . . 

And I'm not about to order a forensic accountant unless 

there is some proof of ownership. If your client hasn't 

been traveling for the business, you know, a deposition 

is going to bring this all out. A deposition is likely to 

incur a couple of hours of prep time and a couple of 

hours . . . which is going to be significantly less than a 

forensic accountant. If there is the information that 

comes out of the deposition that may justify a forensic 

account, then I may allow it. And I'm not sure what the 

allocation will be. 

Plaintiff's counsel asked if plaintiff could "refile" her motion for the 

appointment of a forensic accountant after the parties were deposed. The judge 

appeared to grant that request on the record. In an order issued that day, the 

judge ordered plaintiff to provide certain documents by July 26, 2021, and the 

parties to complete depositions by August 6, 2021. 

 In September 2021, plaintiff apparently again moved for the appointment 

of a forensic accountant. Plaintiff did not include copies of that motion in the 

appellate record. At oral argument on February 22, 2022, before a different 

Family Part judge, plaintiff's counsel indicated defendant testified during his 

deposition that his "old business closed" and that he was no longer a part of that 

business. She highlighted the following information in support of plaintiff's 
5 A-3267-21

motion: the business's operating agreement had not been amended to show he 

was no longer an owner; the business credit card under his name was still being 

used; defendant had traveled with his family to Europe while receiving 

unemployment benefits; money was flowing in and out of the business; and 

defendant no longer received a salary from the company because he was 

collecting unemployment benefits and the salary was being paid instead to his 

cousin, who had not previously received a salary. Defense counsel asserted 

defendant had produced personal bank statements and credit-card statements and 

that in those personal records and in the business records "not one item of proof, 

nothing, has been shown . . . that [defendant] is receiving some type of extra 

income." 

After hearing argument, the judge denied the motion, finding: 

I do not see that there is a need for a forensic accounting 

in this matter based on all of the information that has 

been submitted already. And that there has been no –

no proof that there is any malfeasance on behalf of the 

business. There's, certainly, no accounts that have 

been, you know, hidden or there's no money that 

[defendant] is, at least on paper, hiding. So, the motion 

to have a forensic accounting is denied. 

After rendering that decision, the judge conducted a plenary hearing 

regarding defendant's modification motion. Both parties testified. On May 18, 

2022, the judge placed a decision on the record. The judge referenced plaintiff's 
6 A-3267-21

"second application" for the appointment of a forensic accountant "made . . . in 

September of 2021" and his denial of that motion on February 22, 2022. Finding 

defendant credible and plaintiff not credible, the judge imputed salary to 

defendant in the amount of $52,000, "as consented to and agreed upon by the 

defendant and his attorney," and held defendant's weekly child-support 

obligation would remain at $108. The judge ordered defendant "to provide his 

tax return to the plaintiff on an annual basis to ensure that there is no drastic 

change in his income." The judge memorialized his decision in a two-part order 

dated July 12, 2022. The judge included in the order his findings that plaintiff 

had not presented credible evidence that defendant was hiding money or that 

money was "being diverted from the business to defendant." 

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 28, 2022, indicating she was 

appealing from an order dated May 18, 2022. In an amended notice of appeal, 

plaintiff stated she was appealing from the July 12, 2022 order, indicating the 

judge did not issue a written order on May 18, 2022. Plaintiff did not list the 

June 24, 2021 order as being the subject of her appeal in either notice. 

In her merits brief, plaintiff presented one argument: the judges abused 

their discretion in denying her motions for the appointment of a forensic 

accountant. She did not brief any other issue. See N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. 
7 A-3267-21

Alloway Twp., 438 N.J. Super. 501, 505 n.2 (App. Div. 2015) (finding "[a]n 

issue that is not briefed is deemed waived upon appeal"). 

Our review of a Family Part judge's findings is limited. We "afford 

substantial deference to the Family Part's findings of fact because of that court's 

special expertise in family matters." W.M. v. D.G., 467 N.J. Super. 216, 229 

(App. Div. 2021) (citing Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)). We review 

a Family Part judge's imputation of income and child-support determination for 

an abuse of discretion. Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424, 433 (App. Div. 

2015). "Reversal is warranted only if the findings were 'so manifestly 

unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably 

credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'" Amzler v. Amzler, 463 

N.J. Super. 187, 197 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. 

Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). We review questions of law de novo. 

Amzler, 463 N.J. Super. at 197. 

Rule 5:3-3(c) authorizes a judge to appoint an expert "to appraise the value 

of any property or to report and recommend as to any other issue" "[w]henever 

the [judge] concludes that disposition of an economic issue will be assisted by 

expert opinion." See also Elrom, 439 N.J. at 438 (noting a "court may appoint 

an expert to resolve an economic issue" pursuant to Rule 5:3-3(c)). Recognizing
8 A-3267-21

that a "court could consider the appointment of an independent expert to assist 

it," our Supreme Court has encouraged courts to use "other discovery methods 

. . . to narrow the issues . . . ." Bowen v. Bowen, 96 N.J. 36, 52 (1984). 

 Plaintiff argues the judge abused his discretion in denying her initial 

motion for the appointment of a forensic accountant on June 24, 2021. Plaintiff, 

however, did not list the June 24, 2021 order in any of her notices of appeal or 

case information statements. See R. 2:5-1(f)(2)(ii) (requiring an appellant to 

"designate the judgment, decision, action, or rule, or part thereof appealed from" 

in the notice of appeal); Campagna ex rel. Greco v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 337 N.J. 

Super. 530, 550 (App. Div. 2001) (refusing to consider order not listed in notice 

of appeal); see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 5.1 on 

R. 2:5-1 (2022) ("failure to identify an issue in the notice of appeal may be saved 

by identification in the case information statement filed with the notice of 

appeal"); Synnex Corp. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 394 N.J. Super. 577, 588 (App. 

Div. 2007) (reviewing an order that was identified in the case information 

statement but not the notice of appeal). Thus, plaintiff's attempted appeal of the 

denial of her initial motion is procedurally improper. 

 But even considering it substantively, we find no merit in it. On June 24, 

2021, the judge denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice, recalling from a 
9 A-3267-21

prior motion an issue regarding the ownership of the company at issue, and 

ordered defendant to appear for deposition to address that issue, which, in the 

judge's view, was an appropriate initial cost-saving step before appointing and 

incurring the fees of a forensic accountant. We perceive no abuse of discretion 

in that determination. 

 Plaintiff's appeal of the denial of her second motion for the appointment 

of a forensic expert also is procedurally flawed. Pursuant to Rule 2:6-1(a)(1), 

an appellant must include in the appendix "parts of the record . . . essential to 

the proper consideration of the issues, including such parts as the appellant 

should reasonably assume will be relied upon by the respondent in meeting the 

issues raised." We are not "obli[gated] to attempt review of an issue when the 

relevant portions of the record are not included." Cmty. Hosp. Grp., Inc. v. 

Blume Goldfaden Berkowitz Donnelly Fried & Forte, P.C., 381 N.J. Super. 119, 

127 (App. Div. 2005); see also State v. Cordero, 438 N.J. Super. 472, 489 (App. 

Div. 2014). 

Plaintiff did not include in her appendix copies of any documents she 

submitted in support of her September 2021 motion for the appointment of a 

forensic accountant. Thus, we don't know what documentary evidence, if any, 

and what deposition testimony she cited in support of her motion. On that 
10 A-3267-21

record, and without evidence showing "malfeasance" or "hidden" money, we 

have no basis to conclude the judge's determination that he did not need a 

forensic accountant to decide defendant's modification motion was an abuse of 

discretion. 

 Affirmed.