ROBERT C. BROWN v. DR. AND MRS. VINCENT B. PICA,

This case can also be found at 360 N.J. Super. 490, 823 A.2d 854.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
 
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
A-1057-01T2

ROBERT C. BROWN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DR. AND MRS. VINCENT B. PICA,

Defendants-Appellants.

Argued February 11, 2003 - Decided June 2, 2003

Before Judges Stern, Collester and Alley.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County,
Docket No. L-4137-97, whose opinion is
published at __ N.J. Super. __ (Law Div.
2001).

Michael B. Oropollo argued the cause for
appellants (Harwood Lloyd, attorneys;
Mr. Oropollo, of counsel and on the brief).

Jeanette Estremera argued the cause for
respondent (Edward S. Kahn, attorney; Ms.
Estremera, on the brief).

Thomas W. Ladd argued the cause for
Estate of Dr. Pica (McCarter & English,
attorneys).

PER CURIAM
Defendants appealed from the "Second Order Amending [the] Final Judgment and Other Relief," entered on October 10, 2001, awarding plaintiff a total of $1,324,585.20, plus post-judgment interest.See footnote 11
Approximately two months after oral argument before us, the parties advised the Clerk of this court that the case, which impacted on the administration of Dr. Pica's estate, had been settled in principle. We appreciate such advice, at the earliest opportunity, even before an actual settlement is reached, because it permits us to concentrate our time and resources on matters which must be decided and not an appeal which may subsequently become moot before an opinion is filed. We indicated our willingness to accommodate settlement efforts for a reasonable period of time and asked for a report on the status of such efforts by May 16, 2003. The parties did so. We are now advised that the parties have reached an amicable settlement of the underlying case, thereby resolving the appeal. Accordingly, we do not pass on any issue before the trial court, and dismiss the appeal.
Despite our appreciation of the communications from counsel in this case, we take this opportunity to remind the bar of its obligation, too often disregarded, to advise us, as expeditiously as possible, of a settlement or potential settlement of the case.

The appeal is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
Footnote: 1 1The award included $20,659.03 for "past lost wages," $47,962.19 for "medical expenses," and a molded 65% of the jury award for "disability, impairment [and] loss of enjoyment" in the amount of $975,000 plus $253,500 in interest on that award, and approximately $30,000 in fees and costs under the offer of judgment rule, R. 4:58-2. The order under review amends the award referred to in Judge Sabatino's opinion on the motion for new trial. Brown v. Pica, __ N.J. Super. __, __ (Law Div. 2001) (slip op. at 2).