MARGHERITA A. PITALE VS. RICHARD P. KAPLAN(FM-12-1975-08, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1854-15T4
MARGHERITA A. PITALE
(f/k/a MARGHERITA A. KAPLAN),
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICHARD P. KAPLAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________
Submitted May 31, 2017 – Decided August 30, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex
County, Docket No. FM-12-1975-08.
Richard P. Kaplan, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Richard P. Kaplan appeals from the entry of a
default final judgment of divorce (FJOD) and the denial of his
motions to vacate the FJOD. Defendant also appeals from an August
19, 2016 order denying his motion for default judgment in his
October 2014 complaint against plaintiff. Due to procedural
deficiencies, we dismiss the appeal.
According to defendant's unopposed brief on appeal, in August
2008, a default FJOD was entered when he failed to answer a
complaint for divorce. He contends that an answer was not filed
because he was in prison and was not served with the complaint.
His motion to vacate the FJOD was denied. Between 2014 and 2016,
he filed nine post-judgment motions, which the trial court denied
on procedural and substantive grounds. We affirmed. The motions
requested that the court uncover the conspiracy to keep him falsely
imprisoned, issue a warrant for plaintiff's arrest, transfer the
case to the criminal division, and provide defendant with a copy
of the marital agreement.
Regarding the August 19, 2016 order, defendant argues that:
plaintiff and her attorney were involved in a conspiracy to deprive
him of his assets; plaintiff, with the help of state, federal and
municipal officeholders and law enforcement agencies, conspired
to incarcerate him so that she could take his assets; and plaintiff
concealed her personal assets during the divorce proceedings.
The deficiencies of the record on appeal are as follows.
First, defendant has failed to provide transcripts of the divorce
proceedings, the FJOD, or any of the pleadings. R. 2:6-1(a)(1).
Second, defendant has failed to provide references to the appendix
2 A-1854-15T4
in his narration of the facts and procedural history. R. 2:6-
2(a)(4), (5). Third, defendant raises several issues without the
support of facts, or evidence provided in the appendix. R. 2:6-
2(a)(5); See Cherry Hill Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 194
N.J. Super. 282, 283 (App. Div. 1984). These deficiencies do not
provide us with the ability to conduct a meaningful appellate
review of the order denying reconsideration. See R. 2:8-2; R.
2:9-9.
Dismissed.
3 A-1854-15T4