In a Decision –  Furdyna v. MacFarland,     (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court determination not to grant an adjournment.

Defendant, a few days before trial, indicated that she had obtained counsel a few days before trial. Upon questioning by the court, defendant did not know the spelling of attorney's name or his phone number and acknowledged attorney had not entered an appearance with the court. When court resumed, attorney had contacted chambers and said he had not been fully retained. The trial continued. Defendant unsuccessfully argued trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment after she informed court she had retained counsel. At no time did counsel contact the court regarding his representation, request an adjournment either orally or in writing or file a notice of appearance. Defendant has not demonstrated she was prejudiced by the denial of her adjournment request.

In a Decision – S.P. v. F.R.P.,    (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division remanded the Trial Court determination granting Domestic violence protection to the victim’s sister.

Defendant had struck Plaintiff’s sister while in the company of Plaintiff. The Appellate Division  determined to remand for the entry of an amended Domestic Violence Order  removing the sister as a protected person. The sister did not apply for an FRO nor were there any findings that would support the issuance of an order of protection in her favor. It is not clear that there was jurisdiction for the entry of the Domestic Violence Order in favor of the sister. The Domestic Violence Order in favor of the victim remained. 

In a Decision – B.M.O. v. P.M.A.,    (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court determination determining Domestic Violence occurred.

The Appellate Division  determined that defendant repeatedly committed acts with the stated purpose to annoy and alarm plaintiff by disclosing plaintiff's sexual orientation to his family members and employer after plaintiff had informed defendant that he did not wish to disclose his sexual orientation to others and after plaintiff had requested defendant stay out of his life.

In a Decision –  S.T.T. v. M.T.M.,  (A “Reported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division reversed the Trial Court decision (finding Husband not credible based upon a previous court appearance claim of medical emergency.

A Domestic Violence trial occurred. Based upon credibility determinations and the trial court’s reference to a supposed claim of medical emergency at a previous hearing, the Trial Court determined Defendant not to be credible.

The Appellate Division determined that the Trial Court erred in its credibility determinations because it relied on information and events outside the trial record. Trial court focused on defendant's purported medical emergency at the previous proceedings, there was no testimony or evidence concerning the emergency during the Domestic Violence trial but trial court relied on the claimed emergency to support its credibility findings.

In a Decision –  W.M. v. D.G.,   (A “Reported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court decision (to some extent because the child was now about to turn 18).

The child had not been succeeding residing with his mother. Plaintiff  testified that Alex had a chronic absentee record in the seventh grade and feared that Alex would be removed by the division due to the danger posed by his brother, who allegedly suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Alex also testified, indicating his desire to remain in plaintiff's care as he believed living with defendant was "unhealthy" and "unfit" and that he did not have a good relationship with defendant or his siblings.

The trial court concluded that defendant had retained custody as Alex's parent. 

The Appellate Division declined to remand the matter as Alex was about to turn 18, it held that trial courts should not dispose of colorable claims of psychological parentage in a summary fashion, even if a case were on the FD docket.

In a Decision –  Greebel v. Lensak,  (A Reported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court disqualification of counsel.

The attorney had been consulted by a person involved in a palimony issue. About a decade later the other party retained that attorney.

The Appellate Division determined that the first party disclosed significantly harmful information substantially related to the litigation thereby creating a disqualifying conflict.

In a Decision –  Piccione v. Piccione,  (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court determination providing enforcement of its Order pending appeal.

While the appeal was pending, plaintiff moved for aid in relief of litigant's rights, requesting an order directing defendant to pay alimony arrears and plaintiff's attorneys' fees. Defendant opposed, arguing an appeal of the order was pending, but plaintiff noted defendant never sought a stay pending the appeal. The judge granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's motion for a stay, finding defendant had not shown a likelihood of success on appeal or that a stay was needed to avoid irreparable harm

The Appellate Division determined that Husband’s arguments were without merit and not warranting a written opinion. Defendant did not move for a stay of the order and the lower court retained jurisdiction.

In a Decision –  Abate v. Abate,   (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to not vacate the Divorce Judgment.

Defendant attempted to vacate the judgment of divorce, arguing that his epilepsy and treatment medication prevented him from understanding the terms of the Divorce Agreement or the nature of the court hearing.

The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendant's motions to vacate the judgment of divorce, based on the trial court's rejection of defendant's factual allegations in support of his claim that he lacked capacity to agree to the Divorce Agreement.

In a Decision –  Abate v. Abate,   (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to establish reunification therapy.

The Appellate Division noted the son was 19, making parenting time and other aspects moot. The Appellate Division found the judge did not abuse his discretion by issuing orders which encouraged therapy to rebuild the relationship instead of reinstating an agreement which was ill-suited to the child's best interest.

In a Decision –  C.S. v. J.L.-S.,    (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

​

The Appellate Division remanded the Trial Court determination of assumption of tax consequences.

The parties' investment accounts had untaxed dividends and capital gains. Defendant sought to have plaintiff pay 50 percent of the assessed tax liability. The trial court denied defendant's motion, concluding that he "should have known that taxes would be assessed against him.

The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a plenary hearing on the parties' intent for tax treatment of their investment accounts, as the parties disputed whether the terms of the MSA required allocation of the tax liabilities at issue.