From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingris v. Chatarpaul

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Jun 30, 2014
DOCKET NO. A-4189-12T3 (App. Div. Jun. 30, 2014)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-4189-12T3

06-30-2014

PETER INGRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAY CHATARPAUL, CHATARPAUL LAW P.C., Defendants-Respondents.

Peter Ingris, appellant pro se. Respondents have not filed a brief.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION


Before Judges Alvarez and Ostrer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-8004-12.

Peter Ingris, appellant pro se.

Respondents have not filed a brief. PER CURIAM

On May 10, 2013, self-represented plaintiff Peter Ingris filed a notice of appeal listing the following orders, all entered in his attorney malpractice case against defendants Jay Chatarpaul and Chatarpaul Law: (a) the November 5, 2012 denial of "injunctive relief" compelling defendant to deposit counsel fees that plaintiff alleged that he previously paid with the court, (b) the January 25, 2013 dismissal of his motion for partial summary judgment based on the claim that no expert report was necessary, (c) the February 15, 2013 Rule 4:6-2(e) summary dismissal with prejudice of his complaint, and (d) the March 22, 2013 judgment awarding counsel fees of $84 00 plus costs to defendants under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(a)(1) and Rule 1:4-8.

Rule 2:4-1(a) requires that appeals be filed within forty-five days of the entry of a final judgment. Ingris's notice of appeal was filed forty-five days after the entry of the judgment compelling his payment of attorney's fees.

On September 4, 2013, we granted plaintiff a stay under Rule 2:9-5 of the execution of the judgment pending appeal, conditioned upon his posting of a supersedeas bond or other security as set forth in Rule 2:9-6. By way of motion, plaintiff thereafter sought relief from that obligation, which motion was denied on October 28, 2013. Despite the explicit requirement that he comply with the posting of security mandated by the rules, he has not done so.

Because plaintiff failed to comply with the rules, this appeal is dismissed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPEALATE DIVISION


Summaries of

Ingris v. Chatarpaul

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Jun 30, 2014
DOCKET NO. A-4189-12T3 (App. Div. Jun. 30, 2014)
Case details for

Ingris v. Chatarpaul

Case Details

Full title:PETER INGRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAY CHATARPAUL, CHATARPAUL LAW P.C.…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 30, 2014

Citations

DOCKET NO. A-4189-12T3 (App. Div. Jun. 30, 2014)