• Want a new judge?  Here is how..
  • November 13, 2012
  • Law Firm: Brad M. Micklin Esq. Counsellor at Law L.L.C. - Nutley Office
  • Mistretta v. Mistretta

    Overview:

                Plaintiff appeals order denying her motion to seeking recusal the judge and order denying Plaintiff’s various requests for post-judgment relief. We affirm.

    Facts:

                Plaintiff and Defendant were married and had 3 children. A dual judgment of divorce and property settlement agreement were entered. Plaintiff, after her post judgment relief was denied many times, and sought recusal of the judge for “extreme prejudice and unprecedented discrimination” and filed a motion for reconsideration on a plethora of issues. The motion was denied without argument because Plaintiff did not meet her burden in showing a factual basis to seek disqualification. No objective evidence of bias or prejudice was shown. Plaintiff’s motions brought forth no new evidence and showed no existence of the court acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

    Rule: Recusal

                The party must show that the factual bases upon which he/she seeks disqualification are true. The party must provide objective evidence of bias or prejudice or appearance of the same.

    Analysis: The Plaintiff failed to show any objective evidence that the judge was biased or prejudice and thus should be recused.

    Rule: Reconsideration

    Reconsideration itself is “a matter within the sound discretion of the Court, to be exercised in the interest of justice,”D’Atria v. D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). It is not appropriate merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court or wishes to reargue a motion... and, the magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer for reconsideration to be appropriate. Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288-89 (App. Div. 2010). “A litigant must initially demonstrate that the Court acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner, before the Court should engage in the actual reconsideration process.” Palombi, supra, 414 N.J. Super.at 289 (quoting D’Atria, supra, 242 N.J. Super. at 401).

    Analysis: The documents supplied  do not present any new evidence or evidence of changed circumstances, thus reconsideration is not warranted.