SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2150-18T4

SHARL M. GHOBRIAL, 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v. 

WAHID R. ELNASHFAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Argued November 18, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Vernoia and Enright. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Docket No. DC-010038-18. 

Wahid R. Elnashfan, appellant, argued the cause pro se. 

Sharl M. Ghobrial, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 

PER CURIAM 

Following a bench trial, the Special Civil Part entered an October 29, 2018 

order awarding plaintiff Sharl M. Ghobrial a $4500 final judgment against 

defendant Wahid R. Elnashfan and dismissing defendant's counterclaim. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 14, 2020
2

A-2150-18T4

Defendant appeals from that order and a December 24, 2018 order denying his 

motion for reconsideration. Because defendant has failed to provide the required 

record of the trial court proceedings permitting a review of his arguments on 

appeal, we affirm the court's orders. 

We begin by noting that the record on appeal does not include the 

pleadings, the exhibits admitted in evidence at trial, or transcripts of the entire

three-day trial in this matter. We therefore glean the facts, as best we can, from 

the court's bench opinion following trial and the court's written statement of 

reasons supporting its denial of defendant's reconsideration motion.

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging he gave defendant $9000 in cash in 

exchange for defendant's agreement to perform construction work at plaintiff's 

home. Plaintiff also alleged defendant failed to perform and complete all of the 

required construction work. Defendant filed an answer denying plaintiff's 

allegations and a counterclaim alleging that he provided 160 hours of tutoring 

services to plaintiff at the rate of $50 per hour, and that plaintiff owed him $8000 

for the services provided.1

1

 The scant record provided on appeal also suggests that defendant claimed 

plaintiff breached an agreement pursuant to which he was to buy a house, have 

defendant renovate it, and pay defendant a portion of the rental income from the 

house after the renovation was complete.
3

A-2150-18T4

During the three-day trial, plaintiff and defendant testified and presented 

exhibits that were admitted in evidence supporting their respective claims and 

defenses.2 Defendant called two witnesses, who apparently provided testimony 

supporting defendant's counterclaim.3 

After the testimony and evidence was presented, the court rendered an 

opinion from the bench. In sum, the court found plaintiff's testimony credible 

and rejected defendant's version of the events as not credible. The court also 

found the testimony of defendant's witnesses was not credible, concluding their 

testimony should be "disregarded" because they had past and ongoing business 

relationships with defendant, were closely connected to defendant, and were 

biased in defendant's favor. 

Based on those findings, the court found no credible evidence supporting 

defendant's counterclaim, and accepted plaintiff's testimony that he advanced 

defendant $9000 in cash and that defendant failed to complete the agreed-upon 

construction work. The court found plaintiff was entitled to a $4500 refund for 

the portion of the advance paid for the work defendant failed to perform. The 

2

 At oral argument before this court, defendant acknowledged exhibits were 

admitted in evidence at trial and not included in the record on appeal.

3

 The limited record before us does not include the full names of these witnesses.
4

A-2150-18T4

court entered an order dismissing defendant's counterclaim and awarding a 

$4500 final judgment in plaintiff's favor against defendant. 

Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration.4 In its written statement of 

reasons, the court denied the motion, finding defendant failed to demonstrate 

that the court's order for judgment and dismissal of the counterclaim was "based 

upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis" or that the court "failed to consider 

or did not appreciate the significance of certain evidence." See D'Atria v. 

D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401-02 (Ch. Div. 1990) (explaining the standard 

for granting a motion for reconsideration). The court further explained 

defendant did not present any new information that he could not have presented 

during the trial and which, in the interest of justice, supported reconsideration. 

See ibid.

Defendant appealed from the court's order entering the $4,500 final 

judgment against him and dismissing his counterclaim. He also appealed from 

the court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. 

On May 8, 2019, we sua sponte dismissed the appeal based on defendant's 

failure to prosecute. In a July 1, 2019 order, we denied defendant's motion to 

4

 The record does not include the papers filed in support of the reconsideration 

motion. 
5

A-2150-18T4

vacate the dismissal and for an abbreviated transcript, and we explained that 

"[d]efendant's motion to reinstate the appeal [would] not be considered until 

defendant . . . either ordered all of the transcripts or obtained an order from the 

trial court granting an abbreviated transcript." 

On August 19, 2019, the trial court entered an ordered granting 

defendant's request for an abbreviated transcript. See R. 2:5-3(c). The order 

explains the approved abbreviated transcript is based on "points on which"

defendant will rely on appeal, and the order permits an abbreviated transcript of 

the trial court's findings and conclusions, and defendant's cross-examination of 

plaintiff regarding defendant's counterclaim.5 Two months later, we granted 

defendant's motion to reinstate his appeal.

In support of his appeal, defendant filed a brief with an appendix 

consisting of a copy of an unpublished decision and the two orders from which 

his appeal is taken. Defendant's appendix does not include any pleadings in the 

case or any exhibits that were admitted as evidence at trial. The abbreviated 

transcripts supplied by defendant include an eight-page transcript of the October 

17, 2018 trial proceeding, which includes five short, selected segments of 

5

 Defendant does not include in the record on appeal any of the papers he filed 

with the trial court in support of his motion for an abbreviated transcript. 
6

A-2150-18T4

testimony from plaintiff and defendant.6 Defendant also provided an 

abbreviated eight-page October 24, 2018 transcript which includes an almost 

seven-minute segment of the trial during which plaintiff and defendant answered 

questions posed by the court. Lastly, defendant provided a transcript of selected 

portions of the October 29, 2018 proceedings, which includes the court's opinion 

from the bench following the completion of the presentation of the evidence and 

three segments, consisting of thirteen pages, during which defendant cross 

examined plaintiff.7

The four arguments presented in defendant's merits brief on appeal are 

founded on the contention the trial evidence either does not support or 

contradicts the court's factual and credibility findings. More particularly, in 

Points I and II, defendant asserts there is insufficient evidence supporting the 

court's finding he breached a contractual obligation owed to plaintiff. In Point 

III, he claims the court's dismissal of his counterclaim is not supported by the 

6

 The transcripts denote the selected portions of the proceedings as "segments." 

The five segments of the trial proceedings, as reflected on the October 17, 2018 

transcript, are of trial court proceedings of the following durations: thirty 

seconds, twelve seconds, one minute and nineteen seconds, one minute and 

seventeen seconds, and one minute and forty-seven seconds.

7

 The three segments are of durations of eight minutes and forty-nine seconds, 

five minutes and ten seconds, and forty-two seconds.
7

A-2150-18T4

weight of the evidence. In Point IV, defendant contends the court's credibility 

determinations are not supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Our standard of review of "the findings and conclusions of a trial court 

following a bench trial are well-established." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Northfield 

Med. Ctr., P.C., 228 N.J. 596, 619 (2017). We do not "engage in an independent 

assessment of the evidence as if [we] were the court of first instance," State v. 

Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999), and we will "not weigh the evidence, assess 

the credibility of witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence," Mountain 

Hill, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Middletown, 399 N.J. Super. 486, 498 (App. Div. 2008) 

(quoting State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997)). Instead, 

[w]e give deference to the trial court that heard the 

witnesses, sifted the competing evidence, and made 

reasoned conclusions. Reviewing appellate courts 

should "not disturb the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the trial judge" unless convinced that 

those findings and conclusions were "so manifestly 

unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, 

relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend 

the interests of justice." 

[Allstate Ins., 228 N.J. at 619 (citations omitted) 

(quoting Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239, 

254 (2015)).]

"[W]e defer to the trial court's credibility determinations, because it

'"hears the case, sees and observes the witnesses, and hears them testify," 
8

A-2150-18T4

affording it "a better perspective than a reviewing court in evaluating the 

veracity of a witness."'" City Council of Orange Twp. v. Edwards, 455 N.J. 

Super. 261, 272 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 

(2015)). We will not disturb a trial court's findings "unless they are so clearly 

insupportable as to result in their denial of justice." Estate of Ostlund v. 

Ostlund, 391 N.J. Super. 390, 400 (App. Div. 2007) (citing Rova Farms Resort 

v Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483 (1974)). We review the trial court's 

interpretation of law de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of 

Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).

Where, as here, a party on appeal argues a trial court's findings of fact and 

credibility determinations are not supported by, or are contradicted by, the 

record, we must necessarily review and analyze that record. Simple logic 

dictates that it is impossible to determine if a court's fact and credibility 

determinations are supported by the trial record without a review of the record 

itself. 

Our Rules of Court require that an appellant provide those portions of the 

trial record required to properly consider and decide the arguments raised on 

appeal. Rule 2:6-1(a)(1) requires that an appellant include in the appendix on 

appeal the pleadings and "such other parts of the record . . . as are essential to 
9

A-2150-18T4

the proper consideration of the issues, including such parts as the appellant 

should reasonably assume will be relied upon by the respondent in meeting the

issues raised." R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(A) and (I). The record on appeal must also include 

the transcripts of the proceedings before the trial court. R. 2:5-4(a). It is the 

appellant's obligation to order and obtain the trial transcripts for our 

consideration on appeal. R. 2:5-3(a). 

A party's failure to provide the record on appeal required by the Rules of 

Court hinders our ability to conduct proper appellate review. Johnson v. 

Schragger, Lavine, Nagy & Krasny, 340 N.J. Super. 84, 87 n.3 (App. Div. 2001). 

Indeed, the trial court record is so essential to our determination of issues raised 

on appeal, we are not "obliged to attempt review of an issue when the relevant 

portions of the [trial court] record are not included" on appeal. Cmty. Hosp.

Grp., Inc. v. Blume Goldfaden Berkowitz Donnelly Fried & Forte, P.C., 381 N.J. 

Super. 119, 127 (App. Div. 2005); see also State v. Cordero, 438 N.J. Super. 

472, 489 (App. Div. 2014) (finding review of the appellant's arguments was not 

possible because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record of trial court 

proceedings). 

The limited record defendant provides on appeal renders it impossible to 

conduct any reasoned review of his arguments challenging the court's entry of 
10 A-2150-18T4

judgment and dismissal of his counterclaim. Defendant argues the court's fact 

findings are not supported by the trial evidence and testimony, but he fails to 

provide any of the exhibits admitted into evidence at trial and he opted not to 

provide the transcripts of the entire trial. Instead, and as noted, he provides only 

brief snippets of testimony, covering mere minutes of the testimony offered 

during the three-day trial. 

A complete transcript of the trial proceedings is "ordinarily . . . an integral 

part of the record on appeal." In re Guardianship of Dotson, 72 N.J. 112, 115 

(1976). It provides an appellant with "a firm foundation for his [or her] 

arguments that trial error occurred" and it provides the reviewing court with "a 

basis for a complete and proper analysis of all the issues" presented on appeal. 

Ibid.

Defendant did not avoid the obligation to provide all of the trial transcripts 

by successfully moving for an abbreviated transcript. An abbreviated transcript 

must include those portions of the proceedings "on which the appellant will rely 

on the appeal." R. 2:5-3(c)(2); see also Dotson, 72 N.J. at 117 (explaining an 

abbreviated transcript is appropriate "[w]here the specified grounds of appeal 

do not require a complete transcript"). On his motion for an abbreviated 
11 A-2150-18T4

transcript, defendant was required to identify those portions of the record upon

which he intended to rely on appeal. R. 2:5-3(c)(2). 

Defendant's arguments on appeal, however, require much more than an 

analysis of the snippets of testimony he identified to the motion court as 

comprising the trial record pertinent to the issues he intended to raise on appeal. 

For example, he argues the trial court erred by finding his witnesses not credible, 

but he does not include his witnesses' testimony in the abbreviated transcript. 

More broadly, defendant's primary claim is that the court's findings of fact and 

credibility determinations are not supported by the testimony and evidence at 

trial. To address that argument, we must consider the entire evidentiary record. 

Defendant's representation to the motion court about the portions of the record 

pertinent to the issues he intended to raise on appeal did not absolve him of the 

responsibility to provide the transcripts of the proceedings necessary for our 

consideration of the issues he actually raises on appeal. See R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I).

It is our preference to address the merits of a party's claim where that is 

possible. See, e.g., In re Corbo, 238 N.J. 246, 255 (2019). We also appreciate 

that defendant appears as a self-represented litigant. Defendant has ably 

represented himself in this matter, but his failure to provide the pleadings, the 

evidence introduced at trial, and transcripts of the entire trial prevents us from 
12 A-2150-18T4

addressing and deciding the merits of the issues he raises on appeal. For those 

reasons, we affirm the court's orders.8

Affirmed.

8

 Defendant waived his challenge to the court's order denying his motion for 

reconsideration. He does not offer any argument supporting his appeal from the 

order denying that motion. See Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657 

(App. Div. 2011) (holding that "[a]n issue not briefed on appeal is deemed 

waived"); Jefferson Loan Co., Inc. v. Session, 397 N.J. Super. 520, 525 n.4 

(App. Div. 2008) (same).