PALOMBI v. PALOMBI A-2189-08T2 07-08-10
Appellant argued that the motion judge erred in deciding
six post-judgment motions that concerned "substantive" issues
without oral argument. Reviewing the circumstances of each
motion, the court found no abuse of discretion. Motions that
seek a modification of financial obligations without providing a
current and a prior case information statement pursuant to Rule motion, the
5:5-4(a) and motions for reconsideration that fail to explicitly
identify the matters or controlling decisions that demonstrate
that the court acted in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable
manner, see R. 4:49-2, are deficient on their face. Because
these deficiencies are evidentiary in nature, they cannot be
cured at oral argument. Therefore, although motions nominally
raised issues of a substantive nature, the motions failed to
present "substantive" issues to the court for determination;
oral argument would have been unproductive and unnecessary; and
the motion judge acted within his discretion to deny oral
argument.
