CAROLYN APPELL VS. ALBERT BENCHABBATÂ (FM-02-0514-06, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5061-14T4

Appellants Carolyn Appell (mother) and Albert Benchabbat (father) divorced in 2007; their Amended Final Judgment of Divorce (AJOD) required father to maintain medical insurance for their five children and set cost-sharing for unreimbursed medical expenses: mother 40%/father 60% after mother paid $250 per child per year.
In Feb. 2015 father moved to compel mother to apply for New Jersey coverage; mother cross-moved to require father to continue providing coverage through United HealthCare (UHC) or comparable carrier, claiming father switched to Care Connect which required travel to New York.
The Family Part judge, relying on information about comparable plans, ordered mother to obtain comparable coverage (a plan with a $5,000 family deductible) and ordered father to advance premiums and pay 60% of outstanding medical bills per the AJOD.
Mother purchased a Horizon policy costing $554.68 monthly but father did not advance premiums; the court later ordered father responsible for the first $5,000 deductible each calendar year (in equity), shifting full deductible responsibility to him.
Father moved for reconsideration; the court denied reconsideration on May 29, 2015, finding no new facts were presented that would warrant revisiting the prior determination. Father appealed only the reconsideration denial.

Issue	Appellants' Argument (Benchabbat)	Respondent's Argument (Appell)	Held
Whether the Family Part erred by requiring father to pay the full $5,000 deductible despite the AJOD	The order conflicted with the AJOD, created financial hardship, and was not in the children’s best interest; trial judge should have contacted father's broker and heard argument; requests remand for better, cheaper plans	Mother and court: change was made to ensure comparable coverage and mother’s control of the policy; premiums were lower with larger deductible and equity justified assigning the first $5,000 to father	Denied — court did not err in denying reconsideration; no new facts presented and the judge acted within discretion to maintain coverage and equitable allocation

Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (family-court discretionary decisions receive great deference)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (recognizing family courts’ special jurisdiction and expertise)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (trial-court findings are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv’r Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standards for appellate deference to trial-court findings)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (legal conclusions receive no special deference)
State v. Puryear, 441 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div. 2015) (review of reconsideration orders is limited)
D’Atria v. D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div. 1990) (standards for granting reconsideration)
W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 397 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div. 2008) (only orders designated in the notice of appeal are reviewable)
Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div. 2002) (refusal to review an order not designated in the notice of appeal)