Steiger

DISCUSSION

I

Lee asserts a litany of "irregular circumstances" surrounded the trial court hearing,

including: (1) his counsel did not file a brief, (2) the hearing occurred in the context of a

case management conference rather than a "trial," (3) the court ordered simultaneous

briefs, (4) he was not asked to sign a "verification" in connection with the hearing, (5) he

Lee also appeals a second order dated September 18, 2014, where, following the trial court's rejection of Lee as the sole beneficiary, it directed a preliminary distribution to each beneficiary, Paul and Lee. Lee assigns no separate error to the court's second order apart from his contention that the 2010 Instruction was an effective amendment. 3 did not attend the hearing because his counsel did not inform him of it, (6) he had

insufficient time to research New Jersey law, (7) there was no court reporter present, and

(8) he was not allowed to present an argument, due to judicial impartiality or corruption.

Lee's assertions are frivolous, contradicted by the record, and/or do not constitute

grounds for reversal. The court was well within its discretion to set the briefing…