SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSE Y APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 2821

- 18T3 JAMES ORSINI, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. KATHRYN ROST ORSINI, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted February 12, 2020

– Decided Before J udges Fuentes, Haas and Mayer. On appeal from t he Superior Court of New Jersey , Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket FM

- 02

- 1742

- 13. Kathryn Rost Orsini , a ppellant pro s e. Piro Zinna Cifelli Paris & Genitempo, LLC , att orneys for r espondent ( Frank J. Zinna and Alex A. Pastore , 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.

March 5, 20202 A

- 2821

- 18T3

In this post

-

judgment matrimonial appeal, d efendant Kathryn Rost Orsini appeals fro m a February 8, 2019 order denying reconsideration of a December 18, 2018 order concerning custody and parenting time. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Jane Gallina

- Mecca in her oral opinion placed on the record on February 8, 2019. We briefly summarize the facts relevant to defendant's appeal . The parties were divorced pursuant to a July 8 , 2014 Dual Judgment of Divorce (DJOD). The DJOD incorporated the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) . The
MSA included a shared paren ting plan and shared custody regarding the parties'
three minor children

. A fter the DJOD, defendant relocated to Maryland , rendering a shared custody arrangement and parenting plan unworkable. Plaintiff James Orsini became the parent of primary residence (PPR)

. Various F amily P art judges c onducted c ase conferences to resolve the parties ' custody and parenting time issues. The efforts w ere unsuccessful, and a plenary hearing was scheduled to settle those issues

. In connection with the scheduled plenary hearing, the parties served discovery. To prepare f or the hearing, plaintiff filed several motions seeking discovery from defendant. According to plaintiff, defendant's discovery responses were incomplete or deficient.3 A

- 2821

- 18T3

Around t h is time period, defendant failed to return the children to New Jersey after exercising her parenting time . As a result, the judge suspended
defendant's parenting time pending an evaluation by a psychologist

. 1 Defendant declined to schedule the required psycholo gical evaluation. Because defendant refused to provide court ordered discovery and participate in the evaluation, Judge Gallina

- Mecca struck her pleadings without prejudice. Based on defendant's non

- compliance with court orders , plaintiff moved
to term inate his child support obligation, strike defendant's pleadings with prejudice, declare a plenary hearing on the issues of custody and parenting time moot, and reaffirm his status as the parent of primary residence. Defendant did
not file opposition to t he motion despite being served with the motion papers

. In a December 18, 2018 order and written statement of reasons, Judge Gallina

Mecca granted the relief sought by plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the December 18, 2018 order. Judge Gallina

- Mecca conducted oral argument , 2 and denied reconsideration i n an oral decision placed on the record on February 8, 2019.

1 The judge ordered both parties to submit to a psychological evaluation regarding their ability to parent the children.

2 Defendant, who was self

- represented at the reconsideration motion hearing, participated by telephone.4 A

- 2821

- 18T3

On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT RECONSIDERATION OF H ER ORDER OF DECEMBER 18, 2018 AND ENFORCE THE PARTIES [ ' ] MSA AND PARENTING AGREEMENT AND MODIFIED AGREEMENT.
POINT II
THE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT RESPONDENT HAD THE DESIGNATION OF PPR WITHOUT A PLENARY HEARING.
POINT III
THE COURT ERRED IN ORDERIN G THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PARENT HER CHILD PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MSA UNLESS SHE BE THE FIRST TO SUBJECT HERSELF TO A PSYCHOLOGIST'S EVALUATION WHEN SHE ORDERED BOTH PARTIES TO HAVE AN EVALUATION BUT ALLOWED RESPONDENT FULL ACCESS AND PARENTING RIG HTS.
POINT IV
THE COURT VIOLATED THE APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS FOR STRIKING APPELLANT'S PLEADINGS FOR ALLEGEDLY NOT PROVIDING RESPONDENT DISCOVERY.5 A

- 2821

- 18T3 POINT V
THE COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT APPELLANT'S ISSUES PURSUED BEFORE JUDGE FIRKO WERE MOOT WHEN THE ISSUES WERE RIPE AND HAD BEEN PROPERLY PURSUED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF.
POINT VI
THE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD THE DESIGNATION OF PPR, WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE S.
POINT VII
THE BERGEN COU R T JUDGES HAVE ENGAGED IN A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF REWARDING THE FRIVOLOUS MOTIONS PRACTICE OF THE RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY IN BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE MSA AND THE PARENTING AGREEMENT AND CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATION, THUS THE BERGEN COURT S ['] AWARDS OF ATTORNEY[']S FEES AND COSTS ARE IN ERROR AND SHOULD BE VACATED. The standard of review for denial of reconsideration is whether the trial
court abused its discretion. Triffin v. Johnston , 359 N.J. Super. 543, 550 (App. Div. 2003). "Reconsideration itself is 'a matter within the sound discretion of the [c] ourt, to be exercised in the interest of justice[.]'" Palombi v. Palombi , 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting D'Atria v . D'Atria , 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)). Reconsideration "should be utilized only for6 A

- 2821

- 18T3

those cases that fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the [c] ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basi s, or 2) it is obvious that the [c] ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence." Ibid. "[T]he magnitude of the error cited must be a game

- changer for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id.
at 289

. We will not disturb a judge's denial of a motion for reconsideration absent a clear abuse of discretion. Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment , 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015). Here, defendant's motion failed to make the re quisite showing for
reconsideration in accordance with Rule 4:49

- 2

. The judge rendered the December 18, 2018 decision based on evidence presented at that time

. D efendant chose not to submit opposition to plaintiff's motion

. Only after the judge issued t he December 18, 2018 order did defendant seek to provide information to the court as part of a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is properly denied when the application is based on unraised facts known to the party seeking reconsideration prior to the entry of the challenged order and "cannot be used to expand the record." Capital Fin. Co. of Del. Valley , Inc. v. Asterbadi , 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App. Div. 2008). "A motion for reconsideration is designed to seek review of an order based on7 A

- 2821

- 18T3

the evidence before the court on the initial motion, R

. 1:7

- 4, not to serve as a vehicle to introduce new evidence in order to cure an inadequacy in the motion
record." Ibid. (citing Cummings v. Bahr , 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) )

. D efendant failed to articulate any new facts or matters overlooked or misapplied by Judge Gallina

- Mecca or her predecessor judges. D efendant submi tted " new " evidence in a belated and improper attempt to undo the December 18, 2018 order. After reviewing th e record and considering the applicable legal standard, we affirm denial of defendant's motion for
reconsideration for the reasons set forth in Judge Gallina

- Mecca's February 8, 2019 oral decision

. We add only the following comment. Appellate courts revi ew legal arguments addressed to claimed errors by trial court s . Criticism of trial judges who made rulings adverse to the party filing an appeal do not constitute proper appellate argument. A part y' s contention that a trial judge was unfair or biased
"ca nnot be inferred from adverse rulings against a party." Strahan v. Strahan , 402 N.J. Super. 298, 318 (App. Div. 2008). Defendant's certification in support of reconsideration criticized the
F amily P art judges who handled her matrimonial matter

. Our revie w on appeal8 A

- 2821

- 18T3

is confined to the legal arguments presented. Based on the appellate record, defendant was accorded every opportunity to present evidence in support of her position regarding custody , child support, and parenting time. However, because defend ant refused to provide full discovery , declined to submit to a parenting time e valuation, and failed to oppose plaintiff's motion related to the children, the F amily Pa rt judges lacked information necessary to review defendant's contentions

. Affirmed.