L.C. VS. S.C. AND L.F. (L-4749-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0682-19T2
L.C.,1
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S.C. and L.F.,
Defendants-Respondents.
__________________________
Submitted November 5, 2020 – Decided January 22, 2021
Before Judges Whipple and Firko.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-4749-14.
L.C., appellant pro se.
Jardim, Meisner & Susser, PC, attorneys for
respondents (Kenneth L. Winters, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
1
Because the Family Part trial record is under seal pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:17-
42 and Rule 5:3-2, we use initials in place of parties' names. R. 1:38(d)(14).
This appeal emanates from more than ten years of paternity actions
initiated by plaintiff L.C.; her godson, R.S.; and his mother. Plaintiff is the
godmother and former guardian of now-adult R.S., whom plaintiff claims was
fathered by defendant S.C. Plaintiff here appeals two orders, issued on July 16,
2019, and September 6, 2019, sealing Family Part transcripts that memorialized
proceedings against S.C. and his attorney, L.F. We dismiss the appeal for the
following reasons.
On July 16, 2019, Judge Steven J. Polansky issued an order limiting the
release of transcripts and recordings of hearings for "reasons set forth on
record." That order was prepared in response to L.C.'s request for transcripts in
preparation for her appeal of an underlying action. In the order, various
measures are set forth that prevent the dissemination of sealed records.
Nevertheless, the order enables L.C. to use the transcripts for purposes of appeal.
On August 15, 2019, the day after we upheld the trial court's imposition
of litigation sanctions against L.C. for violating sealing orders, 2 Judge Polansky
vacated his July 16, 2019. In an apparent self-correction, on September 6, 2019,
Judge Polansky vacated the August 15 order. The most recent order of
2
L.C. v. S.C., Nos. A-0099-15, A-0227-15, A-1916-16; A-0228-15/A-0229-
15/A-2491-16 (App. Div. Aug. 14. 2019) (slip op. at 20).
A-0682-19T2
2
September 6, 2019, reinstates the original July 16, 2019, transcript order. This
appeal followed.
Plaintiff raises numerous arguments reasserting past grievances and
generally asserting she has been denied her right to appeal. She has not.
First, we emphasize that we are unable to address a contention of error by
the trial court without having been provided a full record thereof. Rule 2:5-3(a).
In her appeal, plaintiff has provided no transcripts detailing Judge Polansky's
reasons for issuing the July 16, 2019 order, thus leaving her appeal unperfected.
Due to plaintiff's failure to perfect the record, we are restrained from disturbing
the trial court's orders sealing the transcripts of the proceedings. See Cipala v.
Lincoln Tech. Inst., 179 N.J. 45, 55 (2004); see also Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n
Inc. v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177-78 (App. Div. 2002). For
reasons not entirely known to us,3 Judge Polansky vacated the July 16, 2019
order and then reversed course by reinstating it. Thus, because the heart of
3
Defendants plausibly posit that the entry of the orders resulted from the judge's
misperception of what appeals were still pending and the self-correction was
ministerial.
A-0682-19T2
3
plaintiff's argument is an assault upon the sealing order itself, we cannot assess
the findings of fact and conclusions of law, unless we know what they are .4
Plaintiff asserts various additional arguments in her appeal. To the extent
that we do not review them here, and because we discern no cognizable error on
the part of the trial court, we conclude that her allegations are without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Dismissed.
4
A cursory review of the record reveals that plaintiff and R.S. have violated
related orders sealing the record, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:17-42 and Rule 5:3-2.
L.C. v. S.C., A-0099-15, A-0227-15, A-1916-16; A-0228-15, A-0229-15, A-
2491-16 (App. Div. Aug. 14. 2019) (slip op. at 20) ("[T]here was a pattern of
violating the sealing orders and appellants' conduct in disseminating the
[recording to a United Parcel Service store clerk] was a clear and blatant
violation of those orders.").
A-0682-19T2
4