Gina Cifello v. Essex County Surrogate Court Clerk

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: May 22, 2026
• Docket: A-0247-25
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0247-25

GINA CIFELLO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ESSEX COUNTY SURROGATE COURT CLERK,

Defendant-Respondent. _____________________________

Argued May 6, 2026 – Decided May 22, 2026

Before Judges Paganelli and Jacobs.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. C-000127-25.

Gina Cifello, appellant, argued the cause on appellant's behalf.

Gary J. Cucchiara, Assistant County Counsel, argued the cause for respondent (Jerome M. St. John, Essex County Counsel, attorney; Gary J. Cucchiara, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Plaintiff Gina Cifello appeals from an August 1, 2025 order denying an

order to show cause (OTSC) she attempted to file with the Essex County

Surrogate's Court (Surrogate) and the dismissal of her subsequent complaint

naming the Surrogate as a defendant. Because we conclude plaintiff was not

provided notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, we vacate the order

and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We glean the procedural history from the meager record. On June 11,

2025, plaintiff filed a complaint against the Surrogate in the Chancery Division.

Plaintiff alleged that a few days prior, she had attempted to file an OTSC with

the Surrogate and the filing was refused. Plaintiff contended as a result of the

Surrogate's refusal, she "was unable to exercise her right to petition the [c]ourt

for redress and was denied access to [the] court."

In a June 11, 2025 email to plaintiff, the Chancery Division judge's staff

acknowledged "receipt of [he]r complaint" and requested "the document

[plaintiff] w[as] trying to file but was refused." Other than this email, plaintiff

received no notice her complaint was under review by the court. The Surrogate

did not file an answer to the complaint, pursuant to Rule 4:5-3; nor did the

Surrogate move to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 4:6-2. Nevertheless,

on August 1, 2025, the court denied plaintiff's OTSC "in its entirety." The order

A-0247-25 2 states: "the refusal of the . . . Surrogate to file the memorial correction/change

of birth records was appropriate as the document does not state a legally

cognizable claim nor meet the requirements of a [c]omplaint venued in the

Probate Part of the Chancery Division." The order seemingly affirms the

Surrogate's refusal to file the OTSC; denies the OTSC, although it was never

filed; and dismisses the complaint against the Surrogate.

On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court: deprived her of due process;

erred in dismissing rather than transferring the matter to the correct division;

and failed to adequately explain its reasons. Further, she contends the

Surrogate's refusal to file her documents denied her right to petition and access

to the courts.

The issues raised on appeal require review of the law and are subject to

our de novo review. We owe no deference to "[a] trial court's interpretation of

the law." In re Adoption of Child ex rel. M.E.B., 444 N.J. Super. 83, 88 (App.

Div. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Est. of Hanges v. Metro Prop. & Cas.

Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 382 (2010)).

"[T]he desire to facilitate judicial administration must take a back seat to

our primary goal which is to adjudicate cases fairly and impartially. Shortcuts

should not be utilized at the expense of justice." Klier v. Sordoni Skanska

A-0247-25 3 Constr. Co., 337 N.J. Super. 76, 83 (App. Div. 2001). "We wholeheartedly

reject, as untenable, a proposition suggesting a court can dismiss a filed

complaint, with prejudice, without allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to defend

the sufficiency of their claims." M.E.B., 444 N.J. Super. at 93.

"The minimum requirements of due process of law are notice and an

opportunity to be heard." Klier, 337 N.J. Super. at 84. "Fundamentally, due

process requires an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a

meaningful manner." Seoung Ouk Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr., 443 N.J.

Super. 461, 472-73 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 106

(1995)).

Applying this well-established law, we vacate the August 1, 2025 order

and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiff was

not provided with notice or opportunity to be heard before the trial court entered

the dispositive order. On remand, the court must provide a hearing date and

time for plaintiff to defend her filings. In addition, the court shall provide the

Surrogate with notice, and if it so chooses, a reasonable period of time to answer

or otherwise respond to the complaint. We offer no opinion on the merits of

plaintiff's pleadings or the outcome of these proceedings.

A-0247-25 4 Vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We

do not retain jurisdiction.

A-0247-25 5