New Jersey Court Cases and Opinions - NJ Legal Research
|Need Legal Help?|
NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH
This court case was taken from the web sites of the NJ Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. A-5217-03T55217-03T5
CHRISTOPHER TANG, JR.,
LISA N. GALUCCI and
JAMES L. LEONE,
Argued September 28, 2005 - Decided
Before Judges Conley and Sapp-Peterson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County,
Adam D. Wilf argued the cause for appellant (Lundy Law Offices, attorneys; Mr. Wilf, on the brief).
Alan G. Giebner argued the cause for respondent Lisa N. Galucci (Buonadonna, Benson & Parenti, attorneys; Mr. Giebner, on the brief).
Eric J. Appelbaum argued the cause for respondent James L. Leone (Kent & McBride, attorneys; Mr. Appelbaum, on the brief).
Plaintiff, Christopher Tang, appeals from the entry of summary judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to present sufficient evidence that the injuries he sustained as a result of a January 30, 2001, motor vehicle accident had a serious impact upon his life pursuant to Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290 (1992).
On appeal, plaintiff challenges the applicability of the serious impact prong of Oswin to the no-fault statute as amended by the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to -35. Plaintiff also contends, should this court conclude the serious impact prong is applicable, the evidence presented to the trial court demonstrates that the injuries had a significant impact upon his life.
While this appeal was pending, the Court decided DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005), holding that AICRA does not require plaintiffs to provide evidence of a serious impact to survive summary judgment. Id. at 506; Beltran v. DeLima, 379 N.J. Super. 169, 176-77 (App. Div. 2005). Therefore, the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment on the serious impact prong is reversed.
In light of this determination, it is unnecessary to address defendants' contention that plaintiff's sworn affidavit was a "sham" affidavit under Shelcusky v. Garjulio, 172 N.J. 185 (2002).
Defendants, however, urge that if the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the serious impact prong of Oswin, summary judgment was appropriate on yet another ground. Specifically, defendants contend plaintiff's doctors failed to perform the requisite comparative analysis distinguishing the injuries sustained in the December 1998 accident and the injuries sustained in the subsequent April 2001 accident from those plaintiff sustained in the January 2001 accident, Polk v. Daconceicao, 268 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 1993).
Although the judge acknowledged defendants' contention that no Polk analysis was conducted, she was unclear as to whether it applied and found that plaintiff had satisfied the first prong, thereby implicitly rejecting defendants' argument. Defendants did not file a cross-appeal from that determination. Thus, they are precluded from raising this point on appeal. Burbridge v. Paschal, 239 N.J. Super. 139, 151 (App. Div. 1990), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 360 (1990).
October 6, 2005
This archive is a service of Rominger Legal.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
Ask Your Legal Question Now.
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
Find An Attorney
Created and Developed by
Copyright 1997 - 2010.
A Division of