STEVEN GREIBROK VS. JENNY GREIBROK (FM-09-1038-13, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1851-15T3
STEVEN GREIBROK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JENNY GREIBROK,
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted October 16, 2018 – Decided October 25, 2018
Before Judges Fisher, Hoffman and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,
Docket No. FM-09-1038-13.
Steven Greibrok, appellant pro se.
Jenny Greibrok, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
The parties married in 2006. Plaintiff Steven Greibrok filed a divorce
complaint in late 2011, dismissed it a few months later, and then sued for divorce
again in late 2012. Despite the brevity of the marriage, the litigation proved quite
contentious, leading to a trial of more than thirty days, spread out from early
February to late August 2015.
The trial court's October 13, 2015 judgment dissolved the marriage but
left several issues unresolved. The judge did not determine whether Steven
should be awarded visitation with A.C., defendant Jenny Greibrok's daughter
from a prior marriage; the judge denied that request without prejudice and
appointed a therapist to both meet with A.C. over a three-month period and
thereafter submit a report memorializing, among other things, A.C.'s wishes and
whether further therapy would be warranted. The judge also chose not to
conclusively determine whether real property in Queens, New York should be
equitably distributed; instead, he appointed an accountant to determine, among
other things, "the gross and net rental income with a tax and depreciati on
analysis . . . from the date of the marriage to date," likely referring to the
judgment date. And the judge left unresolved the parties' competing requests for
counsel fees; those requests were "denied without prejudice pending the court's
review of the reports ordered in this judgment."
Despite the fact that these issues required further trial court consideration,
Steven filed a notice of appeal. After appellate briefs were filed, our clerk's
A-1851-15T3
2
office inquired about the judgment's finality; the pro se litigants' responses
revealed not only that the open issues remained unresolved, but also that the
parties have – since this appeal was commenced – appeared in the trial court
regarding some of those issues contrary to Rule 2:9-1(a), which declares that
"supervision and control" of a matter lies with this court once an appeal is filed.
Our Court Rules were designed to ensure that a lawsuit results in "a single
and complete trial with a single and complete review." Trecartin v. Mahony-
Troast Constr. Co., 21 N.J. 1, 6 (1956). Except in circumstances not relevant
here, Rule 2:2-3 permits a litigant to file an appeal as of right only upon entry
of a judgment that resolves all issues as to all parties. See Silviera-Francisco v.
Bd. of Educ. of City of Elizabeth, 224 N.J. 126, 136 (2016); Ricci v. Ricci, 448
N.J. Super. 546, 565 (App. Div. 2017). An order – such as the October 13, 2015
judgment here – that fails to completely adjudicate all claims is interlocutory;
review of such an order rests solely in our discretion or the discretion of the
Supreme Court. Grow Co. v. Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. 443, 457-58 (App. Div.
2008). To be sure, we have in appropriate circumstances overlooked an
appellant's mistaken filing of a notice of appeal of an interlocutory order – and
in such a circumstance granted leave to appeal out of time – but we conclude
that it wouldn't be beneficial to take such an extraordinary step here. The trial
A-1851-15T3
3
court has yet to resolve issues that are clearly central to the overall litigation ;
indeed, Steven largely seeks our review of the issues that the trial judge did not
finally adjudicate. The best course is to dismiss this appeal without prejudice to
either party's right to file an appeal once the trial court conclusively resolves all
outstanding issues.
Appeal dismissed without prejudice and the matter remanded to the trial
court for all further necessary proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-1851-15T3
4