TIMOTHY CASSIDY v. MARGARET CASSIDY (2011)

Plaintiff Timothy Cassidy appeals from a post-judgment order entered following a plenary hearing held on remand from this court.   Defendant Margaret Cassidy declined to participate in the appeal.

In Cassidy v. Cassidy, No. A–6169–06 (App.Div. Sept. 5, 2008) (slip op. at 17), we directed that the trial court hold a plenary hearing regarding defendant's full-time employment and the effect of defendant's failure to allow plaintiff to have access to the marital home.

The order entered on remand on March 11, 2010, provides that from December 26, 2006 to November 6, 2007, plaintiff's revised alimony obligation to defendant is $385 per week and his revised child support obligation is $237 per week.   From November 7, 2007 to the entry of the order on remand, plaintiff's alimony obligation is $257 per week and his child support obligation is $171 per week.   From the date of the order forward, plaintiff's alimony obligation would be $385 per week and his child support payment would be $180 per week.   The probation office was directed to calculate plaintiff's arrearages in accordance with these amounts.   The order indicates that the trial judge placed his reasons on the record on the date it was entered.

On appeal, plaintiff argues:

I.  TRIAL JUDGE EGREGIOUSLY ABUSED

DISCRETION IN ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY TAKING ONLY SELECTED GOOD MONTHS FOR CALCULATING ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT, INSTEAD OF AVERAGING THE AMOUNTS AND TAKING THE RECESSION AND FALL–OFF IN MY INCOME AS A RESULT INTO CONSIDERATION.

II. TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED DISCRETION BY NOT

REQUIRING DISCOVERY OF INCOME, INCLUDING OVERTIME INCOME WHICH SHE ATTEMPTED TO CONCEAL, AND BY NOT REQUIRING BOYFRIEND'S COHABITATION, INCOME, AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FORMER MARITAL HOME AS PART OF THE ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT CALCULUS.

III. TRIAL JUDGE EGREGIOUSLY ABUSED HIS

DISCRETION BY IMPUTING MY GROSS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AS MY INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF ALIMONY AND SUPPORT, RATHER THAN MY ACTUAL NET INCOME WHICH IS PROVABLE VIA TAX RETURNS.

Contrary to Rule 2:5–3(e), plaintiff failed to provide full transcripts of the plenary hearing and a transcript of the trial judge's decision.   Without those transcripts, we are unable to assess the merits of his claims.  Society Hill Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Society Hill Assocs., 347 N.J.Super. 163, 177–78 (App.Div.2002).   Accordingly, we have no alternative other than to affirm on the ground that plaintiff has failed to establish error warranting relief.   Ibid.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM