Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5003-11T1
10-27-2014
HUI-LIN WEI and SHUANG HE, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. KATHARINE LAI and FANTASTIC REALTY, INC., Defendants-Appellants.
Rebenack, Aronow & Mascolo, LLP, attorneys for appellants (J. Silvio Mascolo, of counsel and on the brief). Philip R. Kaufman, attorney for respondents.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-8066-09. Rebenack, Aronow & Mascolo, LLP, attorneys for appellants (J. Silvio Mascolo, of counsel and on the brief). Philip R. Kaufman, attorney for respondents. PER CURIAM
Defendant Katharine Lai appeals from a March 2, 2012 order denying her motion for reconsideration of a January 12, 2012 judgment entered after a proof hearing. We affirm.
In light of the limited record presented, this appeal warrants only brief discussion. Although defendant defaulted, there is no dispute that the proof hearing was conducted as the equivalent of a plenary trial, in which defendant had the opportunity to testify and cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses. However, on this appeal defendant failed to file the transcripts of the proof hearing. As a result, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In an August 15, 2012 order, this court denied the motion but limited the appeal to the March 2, 2012 order. We further noted that our order did not preclude plaintiff from arguing on this appeal that defendant's failure to file the transcripts warranted affirmance.
The order also dismissed the appeal of Fantastic Realty, Inc., because the corporation was not represented by counsel.
Defendant's appellate brief does not address the merits of the reconsideration motion which resulted in the March 2, 2012 order. Moreover, her brief improperly relies on a certification from defendant dated May 22, 2013 that was not presented to the trial court, and a certification from an attorney that likewise is not part of the motion record. We cannot consider either of those documents. In the interest of justice, we have reviewed Judge Martin E. Kravarik's lengthy oral statement of reasons for the underlying judgment and defendant's two-page pro se reconsideration motion. The motion sought to briefly reargue some of the trial evidence, and absent a trial transcript, is insufficient to support this appeal. As a result, defendant has presented us with no basis to disturb the March 2, 2012 order denying her reconsideration motion, which is the only order properly before us on this appeal.
The certification is stamped filed April 2, 2012, and is dated March 28, 2012.
--------
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION