PRINCE SR. HAIGOOD v. OWNER SUNSET MOTEL MRS. PATRICIA VARJU, ALSO THE SUNSET MOTEL INSURANCE CARRIER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0870-04T5870-04T5

PRINCE SR. HAIGOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

OWNER OF THE SUNSET MOTEL

MRS. PATRICIA VARJU, ALSO

THE SUNSET MOTEL INSURANCE

CARRIER,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Submitted January 19, 2006 - Decided February 16, 2006

Before Judges Winkelstein and Lihotz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, SOM-L-632-03.

Prince Sr. Haigood, appellant pro se.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker for respondent (Brian W. McAlindin of counsel and Jennifer L. Nasta, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This litigation stems from a stabbing incident occurring at the Sunset Motel on May 6, 2001 for which Plaintiff was convicted of reckless manslaughter. Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging negligence for failing to provide an in-room telephone for emergency situations and insufficient security. The trial court granted defendant, Patricia Varju's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint on May 28, 2004. Plaintiff filed for reconsideration, which was denied on August 10, 2004. Plaintiff's appeal followed raising the following issues:

POINT I:

THE JUDGE ERRED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW DENYING DUE PROCESS.

POINT II:

THE JUDGE WAS IN ERROR IN NOT RULING ON DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY TO R.1:5-3 (Proof of Service).

POINT III:

THE JUDGE WAS IMPROPER AND IN ERROR BY ALLOWING FALSE SWEARING TO GO UNCURRED [sic] AND BY NOT ALLOWING A JURY TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFF'S INTENT.

After carefully reviewing the record in the light of the written arguments advanced by the parties, we conclude that the issues presented by plaintiff are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E).

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Derman in her written decision dated May 28, 2004, accompanying the order for summary judgment, as the motion record shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. R. 4:46-2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 528-29 (1995). We also affirm the order denying reconsideration for the reasons expressed by Judge Derman in her written decision dated August 10, 2004. The findings and conclusions of the judge are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974).

Affirmed.

 

The complaint also names as additional defendants, the Sunset Motel Insurance Carrier and John Doe. The record does not reflect disposition as to these parties. This decision relates to the summary judgment motion of defendant Varju, alone.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-870-04T5

February 16, 2006