before trial or judgment, waive his right to appeal____” Mt. Hope Dev. Assocs., supra, 154 N.J. at 147, 712 A.2d 180 (quoting Harmina v. Shay, 101 N.J. Eq. 273, 274, 137 A. 558 (E. & A.1927)). Such agreements or stipulations “will be enforced by dismissal of the appeal taken out of violation thereof, or by refusing to pass upon questions covered by the waiver.” Ibid. In Mt. Hope Dev. Assocs. v. Mt. Hope Waterpower Project, L.P., supra, 154 N.J. 141, 712 A.2d 180, our Supreme Court specifically held that the APDRA does not infringe on the constitutional right to appeal. Id. at 152, 712 A.2d 180. See also New Jersey Citizens Underwriting Reciprocal Exchange v. Kieran Collins, D.C., LLC, 399 N.J.Super. 40, 47, 942 A.2d 864 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 196 N.J. 344, 953 A.2d 763 (2008) (<HOLDING>). The Court stated “the language of APDRA
holding that a party who fails to comply with the mandatory requirements for requesting a judges recusal waives his right to complain of the judges failure to recuse himself recognizing the right to counsel on appeal holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention holding that a party generally does not have the right to appeal a judges order pursuant to the apdra