NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1149-21 ORSOLYA CSAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTILA KUCZORA, Defendant-Respondent. ________________________ Submitted October 17, 2022 — Decided October 28, 2022 Before Judges Mawla and Smith. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FD-02-0287-15. Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri & Da Costa, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Stacey A. Cozewith, of counsel and on the brief; Lydia Latona, on the brief). Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM Plaintiff Orsolya Csak appeals from an October 21, 2021 order granting defendant Attila Kuczora primary residential custody of the parties' seven- and nine-year-old children. Plaintiff also appeals from a December 10, 2021 denying her motion for reconsideration. We affirm. On February 8, 2016, the parties, through counsel, entered a consent order, which designated plaintiff the parent of primary residence and defendant the parent of alternate residence, granted the parties joint legal custody, and granted defendant parenting time. Relevant to the issues raised on this appeal, the parties agreed, in the event they could not resolve future custody or parenting time issues through mediation, they would "have the right to request the appointment of . . . a joint custodial/parenting time expert and conduct a best interest[s] evaluation." They also agreed "no change of circumstances must be shown to commence the review and the evaluator shall review custody de novo to determine what is in the children's best interest." If either party disagreed with the joint expert's recommendation that party could retain their own expert, and "[t]he dissatisfied party shall have the burden of filing an application with the [c]ourt to contest the recommendation. . . . Both parties shall fully participate and comply with all of [the joint expert]'s recommendations, requests and timelines." A-1149-21 2 In December 2017, the parties retained a joint expert who issued a report in September 2018. Defendant disagreed with the report's recommendation and retained his own expert, but the expert had difficulty gaining plaintiff's cooperation. As a result, the parties returned to court, which entered a March 12, 2019 order, stating: "Plaintiff is best advised to cooperate with defendant's best interest[s] evaluation[.] If plaintiff refuses, then [the] court may be in a position to draw appropriate inferences." On June 18, 2009, the court entered another order memorializing that the parties shall cooperate with defendant's expert in the evaluation process. In September 2020, defendant filed an order to show cause to transfer custody and enforce plaintiff's obligation to comply with his expert's evaluation. The judge denied the transfer of custody and compelled plaintiff's compliance with the evaluation. The matter returned to court, and the judge entered an order on May 25, 2021, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals