SERGEY FRADKOV VS. NATALIA KRONFELD (FM-02-1337-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5419-16T3
SERGEY FRADKOV,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATALIA KRONFELD,
Defendant.
__________________________
SNYDER SARNO D'ANIELLO
MACERI & DA COSTA, LLC,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
NATALIA KRONFELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted January 9, 2019 – Decided January 31, 2019
Before Judges Nugent, Reisner and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
Docket No. FM-02-1337-13.
Gambourg Law Group, attorneys for appellant (Roman
V. Gambourg, of counsel and on the briefs).
Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri & Da Costa, LLC,
respondent pro se (Angelo Sarno and Scott D. Danaher,
of counsel and on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Natalia Kronfeld appeals from a July 14, 2017 order awarding
approximately $148,000 in counsel fees to the law firm that represented her in
her divorce action. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the trial
judge. We add the following brief comments.
First, defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying her motion to
consolidate the attorney fee claim with her pending malpractice claim against
the attorneys. Judge Ronny Jo Siegal set forth her reasons for denying
consolidation in oral opinion on June 1, 2016. We agree with Judge Siegal that
the consolidation motion was untimely, having been filed less than a month
before the scheduled plenary hearing on the counsel fees. The attorney fee
motion was filed in June 2015, and was scheduled to be heard at a plenary
hearing starting on June 1, 2016. The malpractice action was not filed until
March 4, 2016, and the consolidation motion was not filed until May 4, 2016.
A-5419-16T3
2
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's decision to deny that motion
as untimely. See Moraes v. Wesler, 439 N.J. Super. 375, 378 (App. Div. 2015).
Next, in a point consisting of one paragraph, defendant argues that in
awarding fees, the judge did not address the reasonableness of the amount of
time the attorneys spent on the case. 1 Judge Siegal's written opinion discussed
at length the reasonableness of the time spent. Because defendant failed to file
a statement of facts with relevant citations to the record, we deem the judge's
factual findings about the fee application as uncontested on appeal. Based on
the facts as the judge found them to be, we find no clear abuse of discretion in
the fee award. See Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995).
Affirmed.
1
Defendant's entire appellate brief is five pages long and is devoid of relevant
citations to the evidentiary record. See R. 2:6-2(a)(4) and (5).
A-5419-16T3
3