IRENE ALMEIDA v. FOCUS HISPANIC CENTER FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0185-08T20185-08T2

IRENE ALMEIDA, CARLOS ALMEIDA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FOCUS HISPANIC CENTER FOR

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Defendant-Respondent.

_____________________________________________________

 

Argued May 19, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No.

L-10131-07.

Randall Bass argued the cause for appellants (Freeman & Bass, attorneys; Mr. Bass, on the brief).

Steven H. Daniels argued the cause for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, attorneys; Mr. Daniels, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Irene Almeida, who moved to the United States from Peru and settled in New Jersey in 2002, began taking English classes free of charge, on the premises of defendant, Focus Hispanic Center for Community Development, a New Jersey non-profit organization formed for educational purposes. After she completed her classes on November 15, 2006, plaintiff slipped and fell on water or other clear liquid as she was descending the stairs to leave the building.

Plaintiff brought this action for the personal injuries she suffered in the slip and fall. The trial court granted defendant's motion for a summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it was barred by the Charitable Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 to -11.

On appeal, plaintiff presents the following arguments:

I. PLAINTIFF WAS NOT RECEIVING BENEFACTIONS FROM THE DEFENDANT

WHEN THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED.

II. THE SCOPE OF THE CHARITABLE

IMMUNITY ACT MAY ONLY EXTEND

TO ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE.

III. THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HEARD OR

GRANTED BEFORE THE DISCOVERY

END DATE.

IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CONFLICTS OF

LAW AMONG VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS

IN THIS AREA OF THE LAW SHOULD

UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF DUE

PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION

OF THE LAW IN THIS MATTER.

Plaintiff's arguments are clearly without merit and do not warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E); see O'Connell v. State, 171 N.J. 484, 486 (2002); Thomas v. Second Baptist Church, 337 N.J. Super. 173, 174-175 (App. Div. 2001); Graber v. Richard Stockton College, 313 N.J. Super. 476, 484 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 409 (1998); Bloom v. Seton Hall Univ., 307 N.J. Super. 487, 491-492 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 405 (1998); Loder v. St. Thomas Greek Orthodox Church, 295 N.J. Super. 297, 299 (App. Div. 1996); Monoghan v. Holy Trinity Church, 275 N.J. Super. 594, 598-599 (App. Div. 1994); Bixenman v. Christ Episcopal Church Parish House, 166 N.J. Super. 148, 152 (App. Div. 1979); Vitolo v. St. Peter's Church, 118 N.J. Super. 35, 36-37 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 60 N.J. 285 (1972); Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church, 74 N.J. Super. 532, 534 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 38 N.J. 305 (1962).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0185-08T2

June 4, 2009