From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patrick v. Precision Marble Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 23, 2014
11 Civ. 3817 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2014)

Opinion

11 Civ. 3817 (MGC)

04-23-2014

LATOYA PATRICK, Plaintiff, v. PRECISION MARBLE INC. and JOSE OCHOA, Defendants.

LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN KANFER, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: Martin Kanfer, Esq. BAXTER SMITH & SHAPIRO, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: Amy L. Schaefer, Esq. Sim R. Shapiro, Esq. Jennifer Warycha, Esq.


OPINION

APPEARANCES:

LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN KANFER, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: Martin Kanfer, Esq.

BAXTER SMITH & SHAPIRO, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendants

By: Amy L. Schaefer, Esq.

Sim R. Shapiro, Esq.

Jennifer Warycha, Esq.

Cedarbaum, J.

The defendants in this negligence action seek permission to move for summary judgment on the basis that New Jersey's "verbal threshold" rule renders plaintiff Latoya Patrick ineligible to recover in tort unless she has suffered a serious injury. This argument was thoroughly briefed in defendants' June 19, 2013 Memorandum of Law and discussed at some length during the March 12, 2014 status conference. Because the relevant statutory language is clear, further treatment of the issue is unnecessary, and defendants' request is futile.

Application of the verbal threshold statute requires both that the plaintiff be a person "subject to [that] subsection" and that the defendant's vehicle be an "automobile." N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:6A-8(a). Precision Marble's commercial tractor trailer is not an "automobile" as the statute defines that term. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:6A-2. Therefore, the verbal threshold rule does not apply.

The "deemer statute" upon which defendants rely, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:28-1.4, does not alter this conclusion. That section, which defendants rightly characterize as focusing "on the plaintiff's status," Def.'s Mem. at 9, merely designates certain victims as "subject to" the verbal threshold rule. It does not alter the substance of that rule by nullifying § 39:6A-8(a)'s defendant-focused "automobile" requirement.

Accordingly, plaintiff is not required to prove serious injury in order to proceed to trial.

SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York

April 23, 2014

__________

MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Patrick v. Precision Marble Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 23, 2014
11 Civ. 3817 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2014)
Case details for

Patrick v. Precision Marble Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LATOYA PATRICK, Plaintiff, v. PRECISION MARBLE INC. and JOSE OCHOA…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Apr 23, 2014

Citations

11 Civ. 3817 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2014)