Opinion
A-0220-20
06-16-2021
STEVE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAIRE S. HAKIM, Defendant-Respondent.
Marc A. Ross, attorneys for appellant (Marc A. Ross and Anthony Scordo, on the briefs). Foster & Mazzie, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Marc S. Mace, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted April 27, 2021
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-1057-19.
Marc A. Ross, attorneys for appellant (Marc A. Ross and Anthony Scordo, on the briefs).
Foster & Mazzie, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Marc S. Mace, on the brief).
Before Judges Fisher and Gummer.
PER CURIAM
In this rear-end collision case, plaintiff appeals the motion judge's decision granting defendant's summary-judgment motion. Plaintiff, who concedes he was at most one or two car lengths behind defendant when they were traveling on Route 17, hit the rear end of defendant's motor vehicle with the front end of his vehicle. Plaintiff testified he did not see defendant's vehicle before the accident; he also testified she had stopped before he hit her vehicle. Citing Poison v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2 (1969), the motion judge concluded plaintiff had failed to establish a material issue of fact and granted defendant's motion.
In this appeal, plaintiff argues the motion judge "erroneously applied Poison v. Anastasia in summarily deeming plaintiffs operation of vehicle negligent as a matter of law warranting dismissal of the complaint" and "erred by using his own observations and experience in evaluating the traffic conditions at the time of the accident." We note the motion judge did not in his decision render any finding regarding plaintiffs operation of his vehicle; he simply found plaintiff had failed to establish a material issue of fact. Although the motion judge in colloquy with counsel made a general comment about driving on Route 17, that comment was not a part of or basis for his decision. Accordingly, we find insufficient merit in plaintiffs arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R.2:l 1-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.