SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO S . A

- 1747

- 17T2

A

- 1749

- 17T2
ALFONSO LOMBARDI and KATHLEEN LOMBARDI,
Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION,
Defendant

- Respondent.

___________________________ _ DOWN NECK, LLC,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION,
Defendant

- Respondent.

____________________________

Submitted March 13, 2019

– Decided April 16, 2019 Before Judges Nugent and Reisner.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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

- 1747

- 17T2 On appeal from t he Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket No s
. 018569

- 2013 and 018568

- 2013.
O'Toole Scrivo F ernandez Weiner Van Lieu LLC, attorneys for appellants (Greg Trif and Nicole M. DeMuro, of counsel and on the briefs). Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General , of counsel; Heather L

. Anderson, Deputy Attorney General , on the brief).
PER CURIAM In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs Alfonso and Kathleen Lombardi and Down Neck, LLC, the limited liability company through which they operate

a restaurant and bar , appeal from a September 19, 2017 order dismissing their complaint and affirming the Division of Taxation's assessment s for unpaid taxes

. Plaintiffs also appeal from an October 31, 2017 order denying reconsideration. Tax Court Judge Kathi F. Fiamingo dismissed plaintiffs' complaint at the
close of their presentation of evidence

. See R. 4:37

- 2(b). She found that plaintiffs failed to produce records or documentation to support their case, and they failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the Division's

assessment s for the tax years 2007 through 2010

. See Yilmaz , Inc., v. Dir., Div.
of Taxation , 390 N.J. Super. 4 3 5, 440 (App. Div. 2007).3 A

- 1747

- 17T2

For example, the judge noted Alfonso Lombardi's claim that an approximately $13,000 deposit into the business's account must have been a loan. But, he had no documentation of the loan and admitted he coul d not recall making the loan. The business also had no documentary evidence concerning cash payouts, tips, or complementary and discounted meals

. The judge found no evidence that the Division used an inappropriate methodology in calculating the underreported income. The judge found plaintiffs agreed the Division
auditor could base his ana lysis on the 2011 tax year, and the fact that chicken may have been slightly less expensive during some earlier years did not render the auditor's methodology invalid

. On this appeal, p laintiffs contend that Judge Fiamingo erred in dismissing their compl aint because they produced competent credible evidence that the
Division 's methodology was "aberrant" and the Division's assessment of taxes
was "far wide of the mark." They also argue that the judge abused discretion in denying their reconsideration moti on, asserting that the judge failed "to consider competent, credible evidence." After reviewing the record in light of the applicable standards of review,
we conclude that Judge Fiamingo considered and properly rejected the arguments plaintiffs raised at the tax trial , and she did not abuse discretion in4 A

- 1747

- 17T2

denying their reconsideration motion. See Yilmaz , 390 N.J. Super. at 443; Cummings v. Bahr , 295 N.J. Super. 374, 389 (App. Div. 1996). We affirm for the reasons cogently stated by Judge Fiamingo in her oral opinion issued on September 19, 2017, and her written opinion issued with the October 31, 2017
order. Plaintiff's appellate contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant
discuss ion in a written opinion

. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.