The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the September 27 proceeding. Thus, we are unable to determine whether the parties were given oral notice that the court intended to revisit the issue of sanctions at the time of trial. Based upon the above statement by the court, it does appear that the court was poised to revisit the issue. While we find no abuse of the court's discretion in revisiting the issue at the time of trial, plaintiff was not afforded a fair opportunity to respond. Doe v. Portiz, 142 N.J. 1, 106 (1995) ("[D]ue process requires an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."); Matter of Doe, 294 N.J. Super. 108, 122 (Law Div. 1996), aff'd, 302 N.J. Super. 255 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 468 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1096, 118 S. Ct. 1580, 140 L. Ed.2d 795 (1998). Given the court's indulgence towards plaintiff during the course of the trial, we are certain the court's failure to afford plaintiff an opportunity to address defense counsel's behavior was inadvertent. Nonetheless, we are constrained to vacate the counsel fee award and remand for new proceedings on the question of sanctions. The proceedings should be held as to both parties since plaintiff attempted to address defense counsel's conduct during the course of the proceedings but was precipitously cut off.
