Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2695-10T2
05-14-2012
DAVID A. FRY, SR., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LYNNE A. FRY, Defendant-Appellant.
Kearney and Associates, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Linda L. Campbell, on the brief). Robert J. O'Donnell, attorney for respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Cuff and Lihotz.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FM-08-297-07.
Kearney and Associates, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Linda L. Campbell, on the brief).
Robert J. O'Donnell, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial appeal, we review an order entered following an evidentiary hearing. The November 2007 amended dual judgment of divorce (JOD) between plaintiff David A. Fry, Sr., and defendant Lynne A. Fry required defendant to return or make available to plaintiff certain personal property. Judge Tomasello found that defendant did not return or make available to plaintiff portions of a train collection accumulated by plaintiff during the marriage as required by the JOD. Based on records and notations made by plaintiff at the time he acquired individual items of the collection and a publication considered authoritative as to value by collectors, the trial judge awarded $27,187 to plaintiff.
The judge also awarded plaintiff counsel fees of $7500.
Defendant argues the facts found by Judge Tomasello are not supported by the record, and plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish with any specificity the missing property. Defendant also contends that the trial judge improperly relied on a transcript from the December 11, 2007 hearing regarding discharge of a final domestic violence restraining order entered in 2004 against plaintiff.
We have examined the record in its entirety and conclude that the factual findings of the trial judge are supported by the record. Those findings are informed by the assessment of the credibility of each witness by the trial judge. Accordingly, we affirm the January 18, 2011 order. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A); Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION