PHILIP E. HAHN v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3815-07T33815-07T3

PHILIP E. HAHN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE

AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY,

IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, and

MARCO ZARBIN, a/k/a MARK ZARBIN,

Defendants-Respondents.

_______________________________________________________

 

Argued January 13, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Graves.

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

L-3267-07.

Philip Hahn, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Michael Ricciardulli argued the cause for respondents (Ruprecht, Hart & Weeks, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Ricciardulli, of counsel and on the brief; Karin J. Ward, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from an order entered on February 29, 2008, which dismissed his claim against defendant Marco Zarbin, M.D., based on plaintiff's failure to file a notice of claim,

 
as required by the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, specifically N.J.S.A. 59:8-3. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the trial judge's February 29, 2008 oral opinion. We reject plaintiff's argument that Dr. Zarbin's certification that he was an employee of the University of Medicine and Dentistry when he operated upon plaintiff is inadmissible hearsay. A motion may be predicated upon facts alleged in an affidavit or certification based on "personal knowledge." R. 1:6-6; R. 1:4-4(b). Dr. Zarbin clearly had the required personal knowledge of the identity of his employer. Plaintiff did not present any evidence contesting Dr. Zarbin's assertion that his employer was the University of Medicine and Dentistry or seek discovery on this issue. Plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant any additional discussion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

Plaintiff's claim against defendant University of Medicine and Dentistry was also dismissed for failure to file a notice of claim. Plaintiff does not appeal from that dismissal.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-3815-07T3

January 26, 2009