Accilien v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

4 Citing cases

  1. Petitions for Certification

    744 A.2d 1208 (N.J. 1999)   Cited 10 times

    1999Lower CourtTitle Date Disposition Citation 323 N.J. Super. 207 732 A.2d 1063 323 N.J. Super. 141 732 A.2d 540 323 N.J. Super. 595 733 A.2d 1229 Insurance 11/10/1999 Denied , Registrant J.G.

  2. Allen v. Heritage Court Associates

    325 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 1999)   Cited 13 times

    However, consistent with the approach in Sprowl, we consider a motion to vacate such a dismissal under the standard set forth in Rule 4:50-1. Cf. Accilien v. Consol. Rail Corp., 323 N.J. Super. 595 (App.Div. 1999). The equitable considerations supporting relief from a procedural dismissal for failure to file a timely motion for confirmation of an arbitration award under Rule 4:21A are even more compelling.

  3. Vitale v. Carrier Clinic, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 08-3472 (FLW) (D.N.J. Jul. 31, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Absent extraordinary circumstances, a failure to comply with the statute that requires a dismissal would be with prejudice." Accilien v. Conrail, 323 N.J. Super 595, 599-600 (App.Div. 1999). Plaintiffs have not identified any extraordinary circumstances underlying their failure to comply with the statute.

  4. Watts v. Camaligan

    344 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 2001)   Cited 10 times
    In Watts, supra, the Appellate Division held that the failure to comply timely with the physician certification requirement of AICRA warranted dismissal without prejudice. 344 N.J.Super. at 468, 782 A.2d 479.

    In both cases the Court affirmed entry of judgment in favor of the party requesting confirmation of arbitration award, and denied relief to the party seeking trial de novo, concluding that the failure to file a timely de novo application was occasioned by attorney neglect, which did not constitute extraordinary circumstances. See also Accilien v. Consolidated Rail, 323 N.J. Super. 595 (App.Div. 1999) (holding that the dismissal of an action after the arbitrator found no cause for action was with prejudice where plaintiff failed to move timely for trial de novo). Addressing the holdings in Hartsfield and Wallace, the Court inCornblatt noted that the applicable statutes required that the motion de novo be filed within thirty days and "that the failure to file within that time period would result in dismissal of any future court actions."Cornblatt, supra, 153 N.J. at 246.