SHAIROON ALI v. PETER VOLO JR (2011)

On April 19, 2010, plaintiff Shairoon Ali, pro se, obtained a judgment in the Law Division, Special Civil Part, against defendant Peter Volo, Jr., for $10,100.   The figure includes loans and expenditures plaintiff claimed she made on his behalf during the course of the parties' three-year relationship.   Defendant now appeals.   We affirm.

The notice of appeal was filed June 3, 2010.   On June 11, 2010, defendant forwarded a notice of motion to vacate the judgment to the Law Division judge based on “newly discovered evidence,” pursuant to Rule 4:50–1(b).  The court denied the application without prejudice on July 16, 2010, noting on the face of the order that, pursuant to Rule 2:9–1(a), it had no jurisdiction to consider the question as a result of the pending appeal.   The order also stated that reasons were placed on the record that same day;  however, those reasons were not supplied to us.

In his supporting certification, defendant claimed that because Commerce Bank was acquired by TD Bank after this litigation was filed, he was unable to timely obtain copies of his cancelled checks in order to prepare for trial.   Defendant now appeals, claiming only that “newly discovered evidence has arisen which would probably alter the judgment․  The judgment should be vacated and a new trial granted.”

The notice of appeal also states that the court erred in finding plaintiff credible and in failing to give adequate weight to defendant's proofs.   Defendant's letter brief, however, does not address this issue at all.

We cannot address the substance of the judgment in the absence of a specific claim of error, and of law in support of the claim.   See State v. Hild, 148 N.J.Super. 294, 296 (App.Div.1977).   Accordingly, in the absence of any discussion on the point, we affirm the judgment on the merits.

We hasten to point out, however, that this decision does not bar defendant from renewing his application to the court to set aside the judgment based on newly discovered evidence.   The prior order was entered without prejudice to any future application.   We do not address the propriety of such an application as the necessary proofs are outside the trial record and no appeal was taken from the July 16, 2010 order.   We therefore make no additional comment.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM