SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSE Y APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 0599

- 18T2 LEADER TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. GREEN TRADE LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant,
and YONI BENHAIM,
Defendant

- Respondent.

____ __________________________

Submitted May 30, 2019

– Decided June 24, 2019 Before Judges Simonelli and Whipple. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L

- 1567

- 18. Garry Pogil, attorney for appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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

- 0599

- 18T2 Ladd e y, Clark & Ryan, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Jonathan N oah Frodella, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Plaintiff, Leader Transportation , Inc., appeals from the September 7, 2018
and September 25, 2018 order s denying its motion to amend the co mplaint and granting defendant's motion to dismiss. For t he reason that follow, we dismiss

. We note at the outset, plaintiff has not provided the record of the motions; therefore, we do not know the legal basis for the trial court's determination beyond what we discern from the judge's ruling in the orders

. Based on our review of the limited app ellate record , Green Trade Logistics, Inc. (Green Trade) engaged plaintiff to pick up and deliver shipping conta iners. Defendant Yoni
Benhaim w as, according to plaintiff, Green Trade's vice

- president. I n April
2016 , plaintiff allege d Green Trade agreed to pay plaintiff $325 per transaction

. On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed a breach of contract c laim against Gre en Trade. On June 1, 2018 , defendant pro se filed a n answer denying the allegations
with an affirmative defense . Green Trade never answered the complaint, and
the trial court entered default against it on July 20, 2018

. O n September 7, 2018, t he court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint against d efendant " for the reasons stated in the moving papers. " The

court stated , " [t] he [ c ] omplaint is not sufficiently pled to establish personal3 A

- 0599

- 18T2

liability against the movant under [ State , Department of Environmental
Prot ection v. Ventron Corp. , 94 N.J. 473 (1983)]. " The judge entered a second September 7, 2018 order granting plaintiff's cross

- motion to amend the complaint and denying defendant's motion to dismiss. The ord er stated:

[p] laintiff ha s not sufficiently pled a cause of action for promissory estoppel

. [ See O'Neill v. State, Dep't of Treasury , 178 N.J. Super. 211 (App. Div. 1981) ] , [ and has not ] sufficiently pled a cause of action to pie [ r ] c e the corporate veil. [ See Richard A. Pulaski C onstr. Co. v. Air Frame Hangars, Inc. , 195 N.J. 457 (2008)]

. On September 14, 2018, defendant's counsel submitted a letter to the trial court seeking clarification of the conflicting orders entered on September 7, 2018. On Sept ember 25, 2018, the trial c ourt entered a corrected order confirming that defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, plaintiff's cross

motion to amend the complaint was denied and plaintiff's amended complaint "was improvidently entered and will [be] stricken from the docket."
On Oc tober 9, 2018 , plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On October 16, 2018, plaintiff amende d its notice of appeal, appealing both the September 7 and September 25, 2018 orders

. On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial judge erred by denying it s motion to amend the complaint and t h at the amended complaint
stated claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel and provided4 A

- 0599

- 18T2

sufficient grounds to pierce the corporate veil

. Based upon the record provided , we cannot address these arguments.
Alt hough the court's orders were included in the appellate record, none of the moving papers presented to the trial judge were provided

. Plaintiff did not
list the ite ms presented to the trial judge; thus , we do not know what the trial judge considered. " A party on appeal is oblig ated to provide the court with ' such other parts of the r ecord . . . as are essential to the proper consideration s of the
issues

. '" Society Hill Condo

. Ass'n , Inc. v. Society Hill Assoc s
. , 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting R

. 2:6

- 1(a)(1)(I) ) ; see also R. 2:6

- 3

. 1
Dismissed.

1 The record on appeal shall consist of all papers on file

in the court . . . , with all entries as to matters made on the records of such courts . . ., the stenographic transcript . . . , and all papers filed with or entries made on the records of the appellate court. [ R. 2:5

- 4(a).]