SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2821-18T3

JAMES ORSINI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KATHRYN ROST ORSINI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted February 12, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Haas and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket FM-02-1742-13.

Kathryn Rost Orsini, appellant pro se.

Piro Zinna Cifelli Paris & Genitempo, LLC, attorneys 

for respondent (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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, 2020
2

A-2821-18T3

In this post-judgment matrimonial appeal, defendant Kathryn Rost Orsini 

appeals from 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 parenting plan and shared custody regarding the parties' 

three minor children. After 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 Family Part judges conducted case conferences to resolve the

parties' custody and parenting time issues. The efforts were unsuccessful, and a 

plenary hearing was scheduled to settle those issues. 

In connection with the scheduled plenary hearing, the parties served 

discovery. To prepare for 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 this 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 psychological 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 terminate 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 the motion despite being served with the motion papers. 

In a December 18, 2018 order and written statement of reasons, Judge GallinaMecca 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 in 

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 HER 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 ORDERING 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 RIGHTS.

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 CIRCUMSTANCES.

POINT VII

THE BERGEN COURT 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 COURTS['] 

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 for 
6

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 basis, 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 requisite 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. 

Defendant chose not to submit opposition to plaintiff's motion. Only after the 

judge issued the 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 on 
7

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)). 

Defendant failed to articulate any new facts or matters overlooked or 

misapplied by Judge Gallina-Mecca or her predecessor judges. Defendant 

submitted "new" evidence in a belated and improper attempt to undo the 

December 18, 2018 order. After reviewing the 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 review legal 

arguments addressed to claimed errors by trial courts. Criticism of trial judges 

who made rulings adverse to the party filing an appeal do not constitute proper 

appellate argument. A party's contention that a trial judge was unfair or biased 

"cannot 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 

Family Part judges who handled her matrimonial matter. Our review on appeal
8

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 defendant refused to provide full discovery, declined to submit to a 

parenting time evaluation, and failed to oppose plaintiff's motion related to the 

children, the Family Part judges lacked information necessary to review 

defendant's contentions. 

Affirmed.