NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0822-20 MICHAEL DEMARCO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEANNE DALY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Submitted September 19, 2022 – Decided October 12, 2022 Before Judges Mayer and Enright. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1355-20. Jeanne Daly, appellant pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM In this one-sided appeal, defendant Jeanne Daly challenges a June 1, 2020 order granting plaintiff Michael DeMarco a voluntary dismissal with out prejudice. She also appeals from the July 24, and August 10, 2020 orders denying her motion for reconsideration of the June 1 order. 1 We affirm. In March 2020, plaintiff, then the CEO of Mack-Cali Realty, filed a Chancery Division complaint against defendant for interference with prospective economic advantage and defamation. The suit stemmed from a disparaging news article written about plaintiff, for which he held defendant responsible. After plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for restraints against defendant, the action was transferred to the Law Division. In April 2020, defendant filed an answer and a motion for "summary dismissal" against plaintiff; she did not file a counterclaim. The following month, plaintiff's counsel wrote to the court asking the Law Division judge to dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. In conjunction with the request for dismissal, plaintiff's counsel stated defendant's answer was "wholly deficient on procedural grounds" and defendant's motion was "nothing more than her '[a]nswer' superimposed under a defective 'Notice of Motion' cover page." Further, plaintiff's counsel stated the "matter [was] ripe for judicial disposal under R[ule] 4:37-1(b)." 1 The August 10 order amended the July 24 order. A-0822-20 2 Defendant admitted that in response to counsel's letter, she determined her "motion was defective and had to be withdrawn." Accordingly, she notified the trial court and counsel, via letter dated May 15, 2020, that she was withdrawing her summary dismissal motion. The record reflects that "[o]n the court's instruction, [p]laintiff's counsel submitted a proposed (blank) Order of Dismissal on May 21, 2020, which the court held for [five] days pending any objection from [defendant]." It is not clear from the record how counsel was notified to submit the proposed order. Defendant conceded she "received the blank order in the mail on May 26, 2020." She also did not dispute she filed no objection to the form of the order. Instead, on May 29, she "submitted a letter to the court seeking clarification as to the blank order she received three . . . days prior from plaintiff's counsel." The judge signed counsel's proposed form of order and filed it on June 1, 2020. The June 1 order dismissed "all claims made by all parties . . . in their …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals