IN THE MATTER OF VALENTINA ASTAFUROVA (P-000035-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2426-15T4

Decedent Valentina Astafurova's will was admitted and letters testamentary issued to executors Igor Solonkovich and Nikolay Astafurov by the Bergen County Surrogate on December 15, 2014.
Yury Astafurov (appellant), son of Valentina and Nikolay, filed a Chancery Division complaint on January 30, 2015 challenging the will's validity.
Multiple trial dates were scheduled and postponed (June 19, 2015 → Aug. 14, 2015 → Sept. 11, 2015 → Oct. 22, 2015 → Jan. 25, 2016); appellant advised he could not obtain a U.S. visa to attend.
On January 11, 2016 appellant faxed the court stating he could not attend or prepare for the January 25 trial due to visa denial.
On January 13, 2016 the trial court cancelled the trial and dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without costs; appellant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal was proper for failure to appear	Yury argued he had just cause: he timely applied and was denied a U.S. visa, so he could not attend.	Respondents implicitly argued dismissal appropriate for nonappearance or failure to prosecute.	Reversed: court abused discretion by dismissing without exploring lesser alternatives.
Whether Rule 1:2-4(a) sanctions applied	Yury contended his absence was excused, so Rule 1:2-4(a) sanctions inapplicable.	Respondents relied on court's authority under Rule 1:2-4(a) to dismiss for nonappearance.	Court found no factual basis to treat absence as "without just excuse," so Rule 1:2-4 could not support dismissal.
Whether lesser remedies were required before dismissal	Yury argued alternatives (de bene esse deposition, preservation of testimony) were available.	Respondents argued dismissal was within court discretion for nonappearance.	Court held trial court should have explored intermediate remedies (e.g., deposition, other procedures) before dismissal.
Whether dismissal standard (with/without prejudice) followed precedent	Yury argued dismissal was inappropriate and extreme.	Respondents argued dismissal without prejudice was permissible.	Court noted dismissals are disfavored and usually without prejudice; here dismissal itself was premature and reversible.

Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005) (standard of review for trial-court sanction decisions)
Connors v. Sexton Studios, Inc., 270 N.J. Super. 390 (App. Div. 1994) (procedural dismissals are disfavored; lesser sanctions preferred)
Brunson v. Affinity Fed. Credit Union, 199 N.J. 381 (2009) (courts must explore less drastic remedies when a necessary witness cannot appear)
Audobon Volunteer Fire Co. No. 1 v. Church Constr. Co., Inc., 206 N.J. Super. 405 (App. Div. 1985) (courts should "shepherd" cases and exhaust alternatives before terminating a claim)