In Haber v. Haber, 253 N.J. Super. 413, 416, 601 A.2d 1199 (App.Div.1992) Judge Keefe stated: The reason underlying this rule is that the very theory and constitution of a court of appellate jurisdiction is only the correction of errors which a court below may have committed, and a court below cannot be said to have committed an error when its judgment was never called into exercise, and the point of law was never taken into consideration, but was abandoned by acquiescence or default of the party who raised it. Id. at 416, 601 A.2d 1199. As the Court observed in Haber, the trial judge is in the best position to decide the merits of a defaulted defendant's arguments, and the "defendant's voluntary conduct in absenting himself from the proceedings should not give him a better advantage on direct appeal than he would have as a movant under R. 4:50-1 where he is obligated to prove both excusable neglect and a meritorious defense." Id. at 417, 601 A.2d 1199.