SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5931

- 17T2 BEZALEL GROSSBERGER, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ROBERT BIFANI and ROBERT BIFANI , LLC, Defendant s - Respondent s .

___________________________ __

Argued telephonically October 24, 2019

– Decided November 18, 2019 Before Judges Gooden Brown and Mawla. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmout h County, Docket No. L

- 1384

- 16. Bezalel Grossberger, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Respondents have not filed brief s . PER CURIAM In this longstanding dispute over property located at 413 Oak Glen Road in Howell (the property) , plaintiff Bezalel G rossberger appeals from a May 1, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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 o n 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

- 5931

- 17T2

2018 Law Division order denying his request for court transcripts at public expense, and denying his request to discharge the claims to the property of defendants Robert Bifani , and his company, Rober t Bifani, LLC (collecti vely, defendants)

. We note plaintiff's brief and appendix were muddled and lacking in procedural formalities designed for appellate review. We have dismissed appeals before for failing to adhere to procedural guidelines. See , e.g. , Cherry Hill Dodge, In c. v. Chrysler Credit Corp. , 194 N.J. Super. 282, 283 (App. Div. 1984) (dismissing an appeal for procedural deficiencies); see also In re Zakhari , 330 N.J. Super. 493, 495 (App. Div. 2000) (holdin g the court was loathe to dismiss an appeal for procedural d eficiencies but did so because the deficiencies made it impossible to properly review the matter). Nonetheless, here, w e affirm. We discern the following facts and procedural history from the r ecord.
P laintiff unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the p roperty in 2006 from Marion and Patrick Ruane , as a result of which there was extensive state and federal litigation unrelated to this appeal

. See Ruane v. Oak Glen, LLC , No. A

- 1300

- 13 (App. Div. Feb. 2, 2016) ; Grossberger v. Ruane , 535 F. App'x 84 (3d Ci r. 2013) ; Grossberger v. Ruane , No. 11

- 3728 (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2011)

. In 2012, Bifani purchased the property from the Ruanes

. In 2016, p laintiff and Bifani's representative apparently engaged in brief discussions about selling the property3 A

- 5931

- 17T2

to plaintiff for over $1.7 million , but the parties never reached an agreement

. However, o n April 14, 2016, p laintiff filed a complaint against Bifani and his company in the Law Division , a ssert ing "various interferences with prospective economic gain through the purchas e of [the property ]

. . . without duly compensating

. . . plaintiff." The complaint alleged that Bifani, through his company , "filed several facially apparent fraudulent entries in reference to [the property ] on the Monmouth County Record in May of 2012. " The complaint asserted claims for "[ u ] njust [ e ] nrichment " and "[ t ] ortious interference ," maintained that "an equitable lien attached to the . . . property[,]" and requested relief, includ ing "compensatory and reimbursement awards for [plaintiff's] effor ts and expenses towards anticipated purchase of [the] property" because Bifani's " sale, " " le ase, " and " occupancy " of the property " would not have been possible without . . . plaintiff's work

. " On May 4, 2016, the trial court entered an order, granting pl aintiff a waiver of fees and costs pursuant to Rule 1:13

- 2(a), providing for the waiver of
f ees for indigent persons "upon the verified application of such person[ s .]" Plaintiff then filed a lis pendens on the property , which was discharged on August 14, 2017, after Bifani f iled a verified complaint in the Chancery Division4 A

- 5931

- 17T2

challenging the lis p endens and seeking other relief

. In the interim, on November 4, 2016, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rul e 1:13

- 7

. When p laintiff moved to reinstate the complaint, Bifani cross - moved to enjoin plaintiff from filing further lawsuits against defendants without leave of court. In a December 1, 2017 order, A ssignment Judge Lisa P. Thornton denied plaintiff's mot ion to reinstate the underlying complaint, and granted defendant's

cross - motion to enjoin plaintiff from further filings without leave of court. See Triffin v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. , 394 N.J. Super. 237, 252 (2007) ("The court has the inherent p ower to protect itself and litigants against harassment and vexati ous litigation and an abuse of process

. ") (quoting Atkinson v. Pittsgrove Twp. , 193 N.J. Super. 23, 32 (Ch. Div. 1983)). Addressing the "good cause" standard specified in Rule 1:13

- 7 (a) i n the accompanying written opinion, t he judge determined plaintiff p rovided no evidence he "properly served [defendants]" as required under the rule. Instead, plaintiff " admit [ ted ]" he failed to pay " a process server " to effectuate service upon defendant s, and only " left a copy of the complaint at counsel's place of busin ess . "5 A

- 5931

- 17T2

Plaintiff did not appeal the December 1, 2017 order. Nonetheless, d espite the dismissal of the complaint and injunction against future filings without leave of court , plaintiff engag ed in extensive motion practice

. Pertinent to this appeal,
i n Jan uary 2018, plaintiff moved to "[e]nter default judgment against . . . defendants by directing the County Recording Clerk to discharge any document purporting to support defendant's claim to [the] property title[,]" and to obtain

" free transcripts at public expense for all hearings ." In a May 1, 2018 order , the court denied plaintiff's motion, finding "no valid grounds for the relief requested." As to the former request , the court noted plai ntiff provided no "logical, legal or [ rational ] grounds to discharge . . . defendant[s'] claim to the . . . property." As to the latter, the court explained there was " no court rule or case law " to support plaintiff's request . Citing Stewart v. Stewart , 59 N.J. 301 (1971) and Robinson v. St. Peter' s Med ical C en t e r , 236 N.J. Super. 94 ( Law Div. 1989), the court explained that plaintiffs bear the cost s of obtaining transcripts
in civil actions for money damages as involved in this case

. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on May 1 6 , 2018 , identifying only the May 1, 2018 order

. Notwithstanding the pending appeal, plaintiff continued to engage in extensive motion practice in the Law Division , resulting in the entry of subsequent orders

. On April 11, 2019 , plaintiff moved to include6 A

- 5931

- 17T2

supplemental docum ents in his brief and appendix for our consideration. On May 16, 2019, we " limit ed" plaintiff's appeal to the " May 1, 2018 " order identified in his notice of appeal, and determined that " the court [ would ] not consider any arguments in the brief that [were ] not addressed to that order. " See 1266 Apartment Corp. v. New Horizon Deli, Inc. , 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004) (explaining that "it is only the judgment or orders designated in the notice of ap peal which are subject to the appeal process and review") (citing Sikes v. Twp

. of Rockaway , 269 N.J. Super. 463, 465

- 66 (App. Div

. 1994 )). See also R. 2:5

- 1(f)(3)(A). In his merits brief , plaintiff raises the following points for our consideration :

P OINT 1 SERVICE OF PROCESS
POINT 2 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
POINT 3 ADVERSE INFERENCE
POINT 4 SUMMARY JUDGMENT
POINT 5 JUDICIALLY NOTICED
POINT 6 TRANSCRIPT
POINT 7 CIVIL ACTION7 A

- 5931

- 17T2

Points one through four pertain to the December 1, 2017 order dismis sing the complaint and will not be addressed in accordance with our May 16, 2019 order

. In P oint five, plaintiff argues "de fendant misrepresent[ed] prior [o]rders to appear as if he has a clean chain of title" to the property. P laintiff asserts an "[e]rr or of [l]aw is an exception to the doctrines of [c]laim [p]reclusion[,]" as "detailed at great length in the underlying comp laint." This argument is " without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. " R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).
As to Points six and seven pertaining to the denial of transcripts at public
expense, w e affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the May 1, 2018 order

. We add only the following comments. Rule 2:5

- 3(d) provides in part that "[i] f the appellant is indigent and i s entitled to have a transcript of the proceedings below furnished without charge for use on appeal, either the trial o r the appellate court , on application , may order the transcript prepared at public expense. " Thus, under the rule, i ndigency and entitle ment are required , and the decision to grant the transcript at public expense is discretionary , not mandatory

. " Althou gh the ordinary ' abuse of discretion ' standard defies precise definition, it arises when a decision is ' made without a rational explanati on, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis. ' " Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosec utor , 171 N.J.8 A

- 5931

- 17T2

561, 571 (2002) (quoting Achacoso

- Sanchez v. Immigration & Naturalization
Serv

. , 779 F.2d 1260, 1265 (7th Cir. 1985) )

. The comment to Rule 2:5

- 3(d) clarif ies that while free transcripts are unquestioned for indigents in criminal appeals, "[i]n the typical civil action, transcripts are not routinely provided without charge to indigents." Pressler & Verniero , Current N.J. Cour t Rules , cmt. 4 on R. 2:5

- 3(d) ( 2019 ). Instead, in civil appea ls , they are available only in very exceptional case s , which warrant that kind of public expenditure. See , e.g. , In re Adoption of a Child by J.D.S. , 176 N.J. 154, 158

- 59 (2003) (holding that in a private adoption action requiring termination of natural parent's parental rights, an indigent natural parent is entitled to transcripts at the expense of the public to pursue appellate review); In re Guardianship of Dotson , 72 N.J. 112 , 118

- 19 (1976) ( per mitting transcripts at public expense to indigent parents in custody and termination of parental rights cases); In re Civil Commitment of D.L. , 351 N.J. Super. 77, 92 (App. Div. 2002) ( providing transcripts at public expense to indigent persons subjec t to civil commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act , N.J.S.A. 30:4

- 27.25, where " the right to counsel on appeal carries with it the concomitant right to all of the necessary expenses of representation, including the cost of transcripts. ").9 A

- 5931

- 17T2

This case is not the type of exceptional civil case warrant ing public expenditure for transcripts. While we acknowledge plaintiff was previously granted a waiver of fees and costs pursuant to Rule 1:13

- 2(a), we also note that the crux of this dispute pert ains to property presumably valued at over $1 million that plaintiff previously attempted to acquire. Thus, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of plaintiff's request for transcripts at public
expense. Affirmed.