EILEEN JACQUES et al. v. PATRICIA D. JARAMILLOCOBOS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4882-04T54882-04T5

EILEEN JACQUES and JAMES McCORMACK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

PATRICIA D. JARAMILLOCOBOS,

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________________

 

Argued: February 15, 2006 - Decided July 26, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Hudson County, L-4630-03.

Norman A. Doyle, Jr. argued the cause for appellants (Doyle & Brady, attorneys; Mr. Doyle, on the brief).

Gary L. Riveles argued the cause for respondent (Dughi & Hewit, attorneys; Hugh A. Keffer, of counsel; Mr. Riveles, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 4, 2002. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the injuries incurred did not satisfy the standards of the personal injury threshold contained in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. After that motion was granted on March 18, 2005, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and for an order further extending the discovery end date. The trial court denied that motion on April 29, 2005.

Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's orders, arguing that the verbal threshold was applied erroneously and that the trial court "abused its discretion in not considering [a physician's] report . . . and not extending the discovery end date nunc pro tunc." That physician's report had been furnished to defendant more than a month beyond the already extended discovery end date.

Judge Antonin stated the reasons for each of her rulings orally on the dates each motion was decided. In addition, the first order, granting summary judgment, recited N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a and Rule 4:46-1, et seq. as the bases for that ruling. The second order, denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate the summary judgment ruling and further extend discovery, recited Rule 4:24-1(c) and Rule 4:49-2 as its bases.

We have analyzed the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards. Judge Antonin's reasons, and the rules and other authorities upon which she relied, were adequate and reasonable grounds for the decision, well within the bounds of legal doctrine and the trial court's discretion. We are in substantial agreement with the rationales she expressed.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4882-04T5

July 26, 2006