Motley v. Division of State Police, 2010 WL 4621498 (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2010). In this appeal of the pre-trial dismissal of a CEPA case, the Appellate Division found itself “constrained to criticize plaintiff’s brief for failing to direct us to the parts of the record that support his factual allegations.” Other panels had previously dressed down other counsel for similar offenses. E.g., Spinks v. Clinton Tp., 402 N.J. Super. 465, 474-75 (App. Div. 2009); El-Sioufi v. St. Peter’s University, 382 N.J. Super. 145, 155 n.4 (App. Div. 2005) (opinion by Judge (now Justice) Hoens).
The frustration level of the Appellate Division with counsel who fail to follow the briefing rules is evident. The court may find other reasons to be frustrated with parties or their counsel on appeal, but it is easy to avoid this particular offense.