CHINWE ATUEGWU VS. EAST ORANGE GENERAL HOSPITALÂ Â (L-6958-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0448-14T2
CHINWE ATUEGWU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EAST ORANGE GENERAL HOSPITAL,
Defendant-Respondent.
___________________________________
Submitted October 24, 2017 – Decided November 3, 2017
Before Judges Fasciale and Moynihan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-6958-
13.
Chinwe Atuegwu, appellant pro se.
Sachs, Maitlin, Fleming & Greene, attorneys
for respondent (Raymond J. Fleming, of counsel;
Christopher Klabonski, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from an August 22, 2014 order denying her
motion for reconsideration of a July 11, 2014 order, which denied
an earlier motion for reconsideration of a March 14, 2014 order
denying her request to enter default against defendant.1 We
affirm.
In September 2013, plaintiff filed her complaint against
defendant. In December 2013, defendant filed an answer and
propounded discovery on plaintiff. In February 2014, plaintiff
filed her motion to enter default. On March 14, 2014, the judge
denied plaintiff's motion to enter default.
The record is unclear as to the exact date on which plaintiff
filed her motion for reconsideration of the March 14, 2014 order,
but it appears that plaintiff waited until late June or early July
2014. On July 11, 2014, the judge denied plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the March 14, 2014 order. Although plaintiff
filed an untimely motion for reconsideration, the judge denied it
on the merits.
Plaintiff then sought reconsideration of the July 11, 2014
order. The record is unclear as to the exact date on which
plaintiff filed her motion for reconsideration of the July 11,
2014 order, but it appears that she waited until some point in
August 2014. On August 22, 2014, the judge denied plaintiff's
1
On August 22, 2014, the judge also dismissed plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice for failure to provide discovery;
however, plaintiff did not appeal from the August 22, 2014 order
dismissing her complaint. In entering the August order dismissing
the complaint with prejudice, the judge correctly followed the
two-step process outlined in Rule 4:23-5(a).
2 A-0448-14T2
motion for reconsideration of the July 11, 2014 order. Although
plaintiff may have filed it out of time, the judge considered the
motion on the merits.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge abused his
discretion by denying her second motion for reconsideration. We
conclude that plaintiff's argument is "without sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in a written opinion." R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We add the following brief remarks.
Reconsideration is reserved "for those cases which fall into
that narrow corridor in which either 1) the [c]ourt has expressed
its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis,
or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or
failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent
evidence." Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div.
1996) (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch.
Div. 1990)). The decision to deny a motion for reconsideration
falls "within the sound discretion of the [trial court], to be
exercised in the interest of justice." Ibid. (quoting D'Atria,
supra, 242 N.J. Super. at 401).
Rule 4:49-2 requires parties seeking reconsideration of an
order to file such a motion within twenty days after service of
the order. The twenty-day limitation is fixed and a court may not
enlarge the deadline. R. 1:3-4(c). A party's motion for
3 A-0448-14T2
reconsideration "shall state with specificity the basis on which
it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling
decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as
to which it has erred." R. 4:49-2.
Here, plaintiff filed her first motion for reconsideration
beyond the twenty-day limitation. For that reason alone, the
judge could have denied that motion. And it appears that the same
can be said for the filing of the second motion for
reconsideration. Nevertheless, and as to both orders denying
reconsideration, plaintiff has failed to show that the judge
expressed his decision based upon a palpably incorrect or
irrational basis, or that it is obvious that the judge either did
not consider, or otherwise failed to appreciate the significance
of probative, competent evidence.
Plaintiff filed her motion to enter default two months after
defendant had filed its answer to the complaint. As a result,
there was no basis to enter default against defendant. Therefore,
in denying plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, the judge did
not abuse his discretion.
Affirmed.
4 A-0448-14T2