Patrick v. Precision Marble Inc. et al, No. 1:2011cv03817 - Document 16 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION: The defendants in this negligence action seek permission to move for summary judgment on the basis that New Jersey's "verbal threshold" rule renders plaintiff Latoya Patrick ineligible to recover in tort unless she has suffere d a serious injury. This argument was thoroughly briefed in defendants' June 19, 2013 Memorandum of Law and discussed at some length during the March 12, 2014 status conference. Because the relevant statutory language is clear, further treatment of the issue is unnecessary, and defendants' request is futile... Accordingly, plaintiff is not required to prove serious injury in order to proceed to trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 4/23/2014) (ja)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X LATOYA PATRICK, Plaintiff, OPINION -against11 Civ. 3817 (MGC) PRECISION MARBLE INC. and JOSE OCHOA, Defendants. ----------------------------------X APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN KANFER, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 Northern Blvd. Great Neck, NY 11021 By: Martin Kanfer, Esq. BAXTER SMITH & SHAPIRO, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants 200 Mamaroneck Ave. White Plains, NY 10601 By: Amy L. Schaefer, Esq. Sim R. Shapiro, Esq. Jennifer Warycha, Esq. Cedarbaum, J. The defendants in this negligence action seek permission to move for summary judgment on the basis that New Jersey s verbal threshold rule renders plaintiff Latoya Patrick ineligible to recover in tort unless she has suffered a serious injury. This argument was thoroughly briefed in defendants June 19, 2013 Memorandum of Law and discussed at some length during the March 12, 2014 status conference. Because the relevant statutory language is clear, further treatment of the issue is unnecessary, and defendants request is futile. Application of the verbal threshold statute requires both that the plaintiff be a person subject to [that] subsection and that the defendant s vehicle be an automobile. Ann. § 39:6A 8(a). N.J. Stat. Precision Marble s commercial tractor trailer is not an automobile as the statute defines that term. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:6A-2. Therefore, the verbal threshold rule does not apply. The deemer statute upon which defendants rely, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:28-1.4, does not alter this conclusion. That section, which defendants rightly characterize as focusing on the plaintiff s status, Def. s Mem. at 9, merely designates certain victims as subject to the verbal threshold rule. It does not alter the substance of that rule by nullifying § 39:6A-8(a) s defendant-focused automobile requirement. Accordingly, plaintiff is not required to prove serious injury in order to proceed to trial. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York April 23, 2014 S/______________________________ MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
