SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1770-17T3

AIMEE K. IDAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL IDAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted May 1, 2019 – Decided May 20, 2019

Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket 

No. FM-07-1342-06.

Lane & Lane, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Daniel J. 

Lane, of counsel and on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Daniel Idan appeals from an October 30, 2017 order 

summarizing a series of prior orders setting forth his weekly child support 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1770-17T3

obligations and ordering the Essex County Probation Division to adjust its 

records to reflect the modifications set forth in the order. For the reasons set 

forth below, we dismiss the appeal. 

By way of background, over the past several years, defendant has filed 

repeated motions seeking to modify his child support obligations. He has also 

repeatedly sought reconsideration of the orders deciding the motions. For 

purposes of this opinion we need not detail all of those orders and applications. 

Suffice to say that on June 21, 2017, the Family Part entered an order denying 

in part and granting in part defendant's motion for reconsideration of a January 

30, 2017 order. Defendant did not appeal either from the January 30, 2017 order 

or the June 21, 2017 order. Instead, he filed yet another motion, this time 

seeking reconsideration of the June 21 order. The Family Part disposed of that 

motion by order dated July 14, 2017, modifying defendant's child support 

obligation to $92 per week, effective as of January 1, 2014. 

Defendant had forty-five days to file an appeal from the July 14, 2017 

order, but he did not do so. See R. 2:4-1(a). Nor did he file a motion for 

reconsideration of the order, which would have tolled the time for filing a notice 

of appeal. See R. 2:4-3(e). Instead, defendant's attorney sent the Family Part 

judge a letter on July 28, 2017, asking that the July 14, 2017 order "be clarified 
3

A-1770-17T3

for the benefit of the Probation Division." The letter set forth the specific 

clarifications defendant was seeking. In response, the judge issued an order on 

October 30, 2017, summarizing the prior orders with the clarifications requested 

in defense counsel's letter. The order also directed the Probation Division to 

adjust its records to reflect those "modifications" and recited that "[e]xcept as 

clarified and summarized, herein, all other orders remain in full force and 

effect." 

Defendant's notice of appeal only listed the October 30, 2017 order, and 

therefore that is the only order properly before us on this appeal. See R. 2:5-

1(e)(3)(i); 1266 Apartment Corp. v. New Horizon Deli, Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 

456, 459 (App. Div. 2004). Defendant is barred from appealing that order, 

because it gave him the relief his attorney's letter sought on his behalf. See State 

v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 358-59 (2004) (addressing the doctrines of judicial 

estoppel and invited error); CFG Health Sys., LLC v. Cty. of Hudson, 413 N.J. 

Super. 306, 321 (App. Div. 2010). In fact, the judge actually signed the form of 

order defendant's counsel submitted with the letter, adding only handwritten 

notations specifying the prior order to which each clarification pertained. To 

the extent defendant's appellate brief appears to be seeking relief from any of 

those earlier orders, we decline to consider his arguments for two reasons. First, 
4

A-1770-17T3

the prior orders are not listed in his notice of appeal. Second, an appeal from 

those prior orders would be untimely. The October 30, 2017 order–which 

simply summarized the prior orders with clarifications defendant requested–did 

not revive defendant's long-expired right to appeal from the prior orders. 

Dismissed.