SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1360-19T3

LISA FITTON,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GEORGE ELMASRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted January 4, 2021 – Decided 

Before Judges Fasciale and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, 

Docket No. FM-13-0553-11.

George Elmasry, appellant pro se.

Cores & Associates, LLC, attorneys for respondent 

(Amy Sara Cores, on the brief).

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 21, 2021
2

A-1360-19T3

Defendant appeals from a September 13, 2019 order denying his motion to 

modify the custody arrangement for the parties' son Adam1; and a November 1, 2019 

order denying reconsideration. Defendant argues the judge abused his discretion in 

entering both orders. We disagree and affirm. 

The parties married in December 1994 and have two children together: Adam

and Neil. They separated and eventually divorced in July 2014. The parties entered 

into a Dual Agreement of Divorce, which incorporated the parties' Marital 

Settlement Agreement (MSA). Adam is twenty-one years old and is diagnosed with 

autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 

an anxiety disorder. He presents with physically aggressive tendencies which 

sometimes become violent. In May 2018, a judge determined that Adam was legally 

incapacitated and appointed plaintiff as Adam's guardian. Defendant has custody of 

Neil and currently lives in California with him, his second wife, and their child. 

Pursuant to the MSA, which the parties entered into knowingly and 

voluntarily, defendant and plaintiff shared custody of both children, but plaintiff had 

sole and exclusive authority to make all medical and educational decisions 

pertaining to Adam. The parties acknowledged in the MSA that when Adam reached

1 The names of the parties' children have been changed for purposes of this 

decision.
3

A-1360-19T3

the age of twenty-one, they "[would] work together to move [Adam] to live in a state 

residence as an adult permanently." Plaintiff agreed to register with the Department 

of Developmental Disabilities for the "priority list" to assist in finding Adam a 

suitable permanent placement in a state facility.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points for this court's consideration:

POINT I

[THE MOTION JUDGE] DID NOT UNDERSTAND 

THE CASE DETA[I]LS WHEN HE RULED[.]

POINT II

THE CASE BOUNCED BETWEEN COURTS IN A 

THEATRICAL MANNER[.]

POINT III

THE BEST INTEREST OF [ADAM] WAS NOT 

CONSIDERED[.]

POINT IV

THE PLAINTIFF IS LYING[.]

POINT V

CASE LAW[.]

In his reply brief, defendant raises additional points for this court's 

consideration, which we have renumbered:
4

A-1360-19T3

[POINT VI]

[THE MOTION JUDGE] ACTED WITH 

IGNORANCE[.]

[POINT VII]

HEARSAY IS NOT EVIDENCE[.]

[POINT VIII]

THE MORAL [NON]-EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN 

THE PLAINTIFF AND [DEFENDANT.]

[POINT IX]

PROBATE COURT DECIDED [ADAM'S] LONG 

TERM RESIDENCY[.]

[POINT X]

[DEFENDANT] NEV[E]R GAVE[] UP . . . [HIS] 

PARENTAL RIGHTS.

[POINT XI]

[DEFENDANT] HA[S] THE FIRST RIGHT TO [HIS] 

OWN CHILD OVER THE STATE.

[POINT XII]

THE PLAINTIFF VIOLATED ALL AGREEMENTS.

[POINT XIII]

HEARSAY DOES NOT REPLACE COURT 

APPOINTED EXPERT OPINION.
5

A-1360-19T3

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the motion judge. We add these 

brief remarks. 

We review a motion judge's denial of a modification of child custody for abuse 

of discretion. Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 111-12 (App. Div. 2007). In 

custody determinations, "the primary and overarching consideration is the best 

interest of the child." Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317 (1997). This inquiry 

focuses on the "'safety, happiness, physical, mental and moral welfare' of the 

child[]." Hand, 391 N.J. Super. at 105 (quoting Fantony v. Fantony, 21 N.J. 525, 

536 (1956)). Our Supreme Court has set forth "the proper procedure for [judges] to 

follow on modification motions." Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980); see R.K. 

v. F.K., 437 N.J. Super. 58, 62 (App. Div. 2014) (noting that "[t]he Lepis two-step 

process procedure applies to changes in child custody"). "A party seeking to modify 

custody must demonstrate changed circumstances that affect the welfare of the 

child[]." Hand, 391 N.J. Super. at 105. The motion judge may then conduct a 

plenary hearing "when the submissions show there is a genuine and substantial 

factual dispute regarding the welfare of the child[]" and the motion judge determines 

that "a plenary hearing is necessary to resolve the factual dispute." Ibid.
6

A-1360-19T3

We likewise review a motion judge's denial of reconsideration for abuse of 

discretion. Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010). A 

motion for reconsideration is reserved for "cases which fall into that narrow 

corridor" where the prior decision was "based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational 

basis;" where the judge failed to consider or appreciate the significance of 

"probative, competent evidence," or where "a litigant wishes to bring new or 

additional information to the [judge's] attention which it could not have provided on 

the first application[.]" D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990).

The motion judge rendered a detailed opinion denying defendant's motion to 

modify the custody arrangement for Adam. The judge detailed defendant's 

contentions that he is fully able to care for Adam, that Adam. thrived in his care, and 

that Adam should not be placed in residential living. The judge also detailed 

plaintiff's contentions that defendant did not have the services in place for the proper 

care of Adam, and that she was granted custody of Adam. because of "various 

instances of [Adam] acting out and becoming violent with [defendant's] wife and 

newborn child." The motion judge found 

[defendant's] request to transfer custody of [Adam] to 

[him] and allow [Adam] to reside in California[] is 

contrary to the express terms of the MSA, contrary to the 

recommendations of the professionals involved in 

[Adam's] care, contrary to the [j]udgment of [l]egal 
7

A-1360-19T3

[i]ncapacity and [a]ppointment of [g]uardian of the 

[p]erson and [e]state, and not in [Adam's] best interest.

The motion judge noted that the MSA provides plaintiff with "sole and 

exclusive authority over all medical and educational decisions concerning [Adam]," 

and that "[w]hen [Adam] reaches [twenty-one], the parties will work together to 

move [Adam] to live in a state residence as an adult permanently." 

The motion judge further noted that plaintiff provided numerous 

recommendations from professionals supporting her contention that residential 

placement and treatment for Adam is in his best interest, while defendant "provided 

no recommendations from any professional refuting the many recommendations of 

out of home placement for [Adam]." Nor had defendant provided "evidence of a 

substantial change in the circumstances that affects the welfare of [Adam] such that 

his best interests would be better served by modifying custody." We see no abuse 

of discretion in the motion judge's denial of the custody modification. 

Nor did the judge err in denying defendant's motion for reconsideration. 

Defendant attached numerous additional exhibits with his motion consisting of 

emails between defendant and plaintiff from 2013, "pictures . . . that show how 

[Adam] is well integrated in the society with [defendant]," as well as a transcript of 

the December 8, 2017 hearing and an order from another judge ordering the parties 
8

A-1360-19T3

to participate in mediation. These exhibits were available to defendant and could 

have been included as part of his original motion. The motion judge did not rest his 

decision upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, nor did he fail to consider or 

appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence. He properly rejected 

defendant's attempt to expand the record and presented thorough written reasons for 

his denial. The judge therefore did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant's 

motion for reconsideration. 

To the extent that we have not addressed defendant's remaining arguments, 

we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.