CAROLYN APPELL VS. ALBERT BENCHABBATÂ (FM-02-0514-06, BERGEN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5061-14T4
CAROLYN APPELL,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ALBERT BENCHABBAT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________
Submitted March 7, 2017 – Decided October 20, 2017
Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
Docket No. FM-02-0514-06.
Albert Benchabbat, appellant pro se.
Carolyn Appell, respondent pro se.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SUTER, J.A.D.
Defendant appeals the May 29, 2015 order that denied
reconsideration of an earlier order, requiring him to pay a $5000
deductible for his children's health insurance. We affirm, finding
no error by the Family Court judge in denying reconsideration.
Carolyn Appell (mother) and Albert Benchabbat (father) were
divorced in 2007. Their June 2007 Amended Final Judgment of
Divorce (AJOD) comprehensively addressed issues involving the end
of the marriage. This appeal concerns the issue of health
insurance for the couple's five children.
The AJOD provided that father "shall continue to maintain the
five minor children on his medical insurance coverage." Mother
was required to pay "the first $250[] of unreimbursed medical
expenses per child, per year." After mother paid that amount, the
"unreimbursed medical expenses shall be shared proportionately
between the parties, with [mother] responsible for 40% and [father]
responsible for 60% of any amounts over and above the $250 per
year, per child threshold."
In February 2015, the parties appeared before the Family
Division judge based on father's motion to compel mother to apply
in New Jersey for health insurance for the children. Mother cross-
moved to require father to continue providing health insurance
through United Health Care (UHC) "or another comparable carrier."
She complained that father had not continued coverage for the
children with UHC but obtained it through Care Connect. Because
Care Connect had no contract with the State of New Jersey, she was
required to take the children to New York for appointments. The
judge contacted UHC by phone, and based on father's representation
2 A-5061-14T4
that the "max out-of–pocket" on the former policy was $5000, the
court obtained information that comparable coverage ranged from
$1196 per month to $392 per month. The judge obtained
clarification that the parent providing coverage would be billed
for it.
The court ordered mother to apply for health insurance through
UHC and New Jersey FamilyCare for coverage comparable to the former
UHC plan with a $5000 family deductible. Father was to pay by
advancing three months of premiums to mother at a time. He was
ordered, consistent with the AJOD, to pay sixty percent of an
outstanding medical bill.
Mother filed a motion for reconsideration. Although she
purchased insurance for the children from Horizon Blue Cross/Blue
Shield for $554.68 per month, father did not advance the premiums.
She told the judge the prior health plan did not have a $5000
deductible and "any plan that does not have that five-thousand-
dollar deductible will not be anywhere near the price that you
were quoted in court." Mother requested that father pay all of
the $5000 deductible. Father objected saying he had paid monies
into the court.
On April 7, 2015, the court ordered that father remain
obligated under the AJOD to pay through Probation the health
insurance premiums for all of the emancipated children. Also,
3 A-5061-14T4
father was responsible to pay all of the $5000 deductible within
each calendar year.
On May 29, 2015, the court denied father's motion for
reconsideration because he "provided no new facts which would
warrant this court reviewing its prior determination." The court
denied his request to require mother to pay the first $250 per
child per year in unreimbursed medical expenses. The court's
order stated that it had ordered the change in who provided
insurance coverage "at [d]efendant's request, but also to grant
[p]laintiff control over the policy so she could ensure there was
health insurance in place for the children." The court's order
stated that defendant was responsible under the AJOD for all of
the premiums and 60% of the deductible, however, "[b]ecause the
premiums under the new health insurance policy were far less, the
court exercised its powers in equity to make [d]efendant
responsible for the first $5000 of the deductible." The court
considered his "out-of-pocket expenses under the new policy were
comparable to that under the old policy." Mother was ordered to
provide medical bills and insurance cards to him on a quarterly
basis.
Father appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
He contends the court erred in requiring him to pay the full
deductible because this was contrary to the AJOD, constituted a
4 A-5061-14T4
financial hardship and was not in the children's best interest.
He suggested the court should have called his insurance broker and
also heard oral argument. He requests a remand to the trial court
to find "better insurance benefits coverage and more cost effective
premiums" for the children. We discern no error by the court and
affirm.
Father appeals the May 29, 2015 order that denied
reconsideration. We do not have before us the February 2, 2015
or April 7, 2015 orders because he did not file an appeal of these
orders. See W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397
N.J. Super. 455, 458 (App. Div. 2008) ("[I]t is clear that it is
only the orders designated in the notice of appeal that are subject
to the appeal process and review."); Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City
of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div.) (reviewing only
denial of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and refusing
to review the original grant of summary judgment because that
order was not designated in the notice of appeal), certif. denied,
174 N.J. 544 (2002). Thus, the only issue is whether the court
erred in denying reconsideration of the order that father pay all
of the annual $5000 deductible.
We accord "great deference to discretionary decisions of
Family Part judges[,]" Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184,
197 (App. Div. 2012), in recognition of the "family courts' special
5 A-5061-14T4
jurisdiction and expertise in family matters[.]" N.J. Div. of
Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328, 343 (2010)
(quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)). "[F]indings
by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by
adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare, supra, 154
N.J. at 411-12 (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'r Ins. Co.,
65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). However, "[a] trial court's
interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow
from established facts are not entitled to any special deference."
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366,
378 (1995).
Because this appeal involves a reconsideration order, the
review is further limited. State v. Puryear, 441 N.J. Super. 280,
294 (App. Div. 2015). Reconsideration is not appropriate merely
because a litigant is dissatisfied with a decision. D'Atria v.
D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). Reconsideration
is appropriate only where "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." Ibid. Reconsideration may also be granted where "a
litigant wishes to bring new or additional information to the
6 A-5061-14T4
[c]ourt’s attention which it could not have provided on the first
application." Ibid.The court did not err in denying the requested
reconsideration. Based on information from the health plans, the
larger deductible kept lower premiums for comparable coverage.
Father does not contend he presented new information about other
plans and rates that the court failed to consider. Although his
financial responsibility for the deductible increased moderately,1
the court did not modify the parties' 60/40 sharing for
unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $5000 and sought to
maintain a reasonable premium once father was no longer required
to provide the insurance coverage. The court's decision was
reasoned and based on the evidence before it.
We conclude that defendant's further arguments are without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
1
The deductible increase was approximately $2600, but there was
no information about an increase or decrease in the premium.
7 A-5061-14T4