RECORD IMPOUNDED 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-1369-22 

N.T., 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

A.T., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Submitted May 7, 2024 – Decided May 21, 2024 

Before Judges Mayer and Whipple. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket 

No. FV-20-0493-12. 

A.T., appellant pro se. 

Respondent has not filed a brief. 

PER CURIAM 

Defendant A.T. appeals from a December 16, 2022 order of the Family Part 

denying a motion for reconsideration after the court denied the original motion to

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-1369-22

dismiss. Defendant also filed notices of appeal dated January 13, and March 2, 2023, 

appealing from the same December 16, 2022 order denying reconsideration. 

Additionally, the Appellate Division received a notice of appeal on January 31, 

2023, purporting to appeal from an order dated January 4, 2023. Defendant failed 

to include a copy of this order in his appendix. Notwithstanding the inconsistent and 

incomplete record presented, we determine the only order under appeal is the 

December 16, 2022 order denying defendant's motion for reconsideration. We 

affirm that order. 

Defendant submitted a brief1 recounting the extensive procedural history 

of his divorce from plaintiff but omitted the orders and judgments he references 

in his brief. In his appendix, he identified his motion for reconsideration of his 

motion to dismiss the Final Restraining Order (FRO) as the "Motion Document 

Appealed." In defendant's Case Information Statement, he claims to appeal from 

the December 16, 2022 order and an order dated August 5, 2022, denying 

1

 We are unable to determine whether all of the documents defendant submitted 

in his appendix were part of the record before the trial judge. Defendant also 

failed to provide transcripts on appeal. 
3 A-1369-22

dismissal of the FRO.2 Also attached to the Case Information Statement, but not 

included in the appendix, is a December 16, 2022 letter decision from Judge 

Frederic McDaniel that states: 

Defendant filed this [m]otion seeking reconsideration 

of the [c]ourt's August 5, 2022 [o]rder denying the 

[d]efendant's Motion to Dismiss the [FRO]. . . . This 

[m]otion was considered on the papers submitted. 

Under [Rule] 4:49-2, Motion to Alter or Amend a 

Judgment or Order "except as otherwise provided by 

R[ule] 1:13-1 (clerical errors), a [m]otion for rehearing 

or reconsideration seeking to alter or amend a 

[j]udgment or [o]rder shall be served not later than 

twenty (20) days after service of the [j]udgment or

[o]rder upon all parties by the party obtaining it. The 

[m]otion shall state with specificity the basis upon 

which it is made, including a statement of the matters 

or controlling decisions which counsel believes the

[c]ourt has overlooked or to which it has erred, and 

shall have annexed thereto a copy of the [j]udgment or 

[o]rder sought to be reconsidered and a copy of the

[c]ourt's corresponding written opinion, if any." 

In [d]efendant's [m]otion he states that he seeks to 

"amend the [o]rder as the basis and matters of the 

controlling decision was overlooked and because the

[p]laintiff committed perjury during the hearing." He 

also contends that the [p]laintiff does not fear him. He 

claims that this [is] evidenced by the [p]laintiff 

2

 The August 5, 2022 order specifically stated it is accompanied by a written 

decision denying defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant failed to provide a 

copy of the judge's written decision and thus, we decline to consider any appeal 

of that order. See R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(D) (an appendix shall contain "any opinions or 

statement of findings and conclusions"). 
4 A-1369-22

allowing her daughter to enter [d]efendant's home and 

that she "stopped by his house many times." The 

[d]efendant also argues once more, that the [p]laintiff 

worked in a jail. 

He argues that he does not have a criminal record, never 

had a car accident, moving violation, never got drunk, 

never smoked and was never in any "aggressive 

altercation." He offers that he was an air force officer 

and still flies airplanes. 

He claims that "the testimony of the [p]laintiff is all 

imaginary and hearsay and is not based on evidence." 

He claims that the [p]laintiff's motive[] is to 

"humiliate" him and that her opposition is not made in 

good faith. 

Defendant complains that he did not get a written 

opinion regarding factor eleven set forth in Carfagno.[3] 

He also argues that there was a risk assessment that did 

not indicate that he is a risk to anyone. 

The [c]ourt is unclear as to what the [d]efendant means 

when he states that he "seeks to amend the [o]rder as 

the basis and matters of the controlling decision was 

overlooked[.]" 

It appears to be a misquote of R[ule] 4:49-2 in which 

the [Rule] requires a statement, with specificity of the 

basis upon which it is made. 

That includes a statement of the matters or controlling 

decisions which he believes the [c]ourt overlooked or 

as to which it has erred. 

3

 Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424 (Ch. Div. 1995). 
5 A-1369-22

The [d]efendant fails to offer any case law in his 

argument and instead repeats the same arguments that 

he made in his original Motion to Dismiss which the

[c]ourt previously considered and addressed in its 

written opinion. The [c]ourt also notes that although 

[d]efendant states that he is seeking to amend the 

[FRO], he is not. He is seeking to have it vacated. 

The [d]efendant's claims that the [p]laintiff committed 

perjury during the hearing is not supported by any 

evidence and would have been more properly a subject 

for appeal to the Appellate Division. 

All other claims made by the [d]efendant were 

considered by the [c]ourt and will not now be 

readdressed. This includes his claim that she does[ not] 

fear him because her child went to [his] home and the 

fact that she worked in a jail. 

All other claims including that he does not have a 

criminal record, never had an accident or violation, has 

never been drunk or smoked and never involved in a[n] 

aggressive altercation are issues that are not suitable for 

argument under a [m]otion to reconsider. Neither 

would [d]efendant's air force service or ability to fly 

planes. 

Other claims regarding the fact that he never violated 

the Restraining Order, that he has a clean history and 

morality, and that her objective is to humiliate him [] 

were issues for consideration at the [FRO] hearing. 

Defendant's risk assessment findings are not germane 

as they would not address potential risk to the 

[p]laintiff. 
6 A-1369-22

Finally, the [c]ourt did not find any other factors that 

were deemed relevant as set forth under factor eleven 

in the Carfagno case. 

For the forementioned reasons, the [d]efendant's 

[m]otion is denied. 

On appeal, defendant argues the trial judge did not consider the Carfagno 

factors. He further argues the FRO should be vacated, because plaintiff is not 

credible and is not afraid of him. 

We reject defendant's argument. As a preliminary matter, although the

entirety of defendant's brief argues the judge erred in granting the FRO, 

defendant only appeals from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, we decline to address defendant's arguments related to the FRO. 

See W.H. Indus. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397 N.J. Super. 455, 458-59 (App. 

Div. 2008) (finding that it is only the orders on appeal that are subject to review); 

Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. 

Div. 2022). 

Moreover, on the minimal record provided by defendant, we are satisfied 

the judge's denial of reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion. An appeal 

from the denial of a motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 4:49-2. A 

motion for reconsideration is addressed to the trial court's sound discretion. 

Capital Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App. 
7 A-1369-22

Div. 2008). "Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases [where] 

. . . either 1) the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably 

incorrect or irrational 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 v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Neither grounds for 

reconsideration are applicable in this case. On this record, we are satisfied Judge

McDaniel's decision was not palpably incorrect, and he appropriately considered 

the evidence presented in reviewing defendant's reconsideration motion. 

Affirmed.