ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, et al. v. JUSTIN J. SON, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3833-04T23833-04T2

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ,

BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

MOTHER AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM

OF RAQUEL RODRIGUEZ,

NILDA RODRIGUEZ AND

SANTA RODRIGUEZ, MOTHER

AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF

MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ AND JOEL

RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUSTIN J. SON,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

DANI RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

 

Argued January 31, 2006 - Decided February 10, 2006

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,

L-767-03.

Thoreau F. Clark argued the cause for

appellants (Neal M. Unger and Associates,

attorneys; Mr. Clark and Neal M. Unger, on

the brief).

Respondent Justin J. Son did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal by plaintiff, Orlando Rodriguez, from a summary judgment dismissing his action for damages resulting from an automobile accident on July 15, 2001. We reverse.

At the time of the accident, plaintiff was subject to the "limitation on lawsuit" threshold contained in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a). After answers were filed, the complaint against defendant, Dani Rodriguez, was dismissed. Plaintiff does not appeal from that dismissal. Defendant, Justin J. Son, thereafter, filed a motion for summary judgment. At the time the motion was heard, the motion judge was guided by our opinion in James v. Torres, 354 N.J. Super. 586 (App. Div. 2002), holding that the adoption of the Automobile Insurance Costs Reduction Act of 1998 (AICRA) did not affect the so-called subjective prong of the test imposed by Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290 (1992). That prong required a plaintiff, as a condition of recovery in a threshold case, to demonstrate an injury significantly impacting the plaintiff's life. The motion judge, therefore, reviewed the submissions to determine if plaintiff had demonstrated a factual dispute as to the existence of an accident-related significant impact. She concluded that he had not and, accordingly, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

 
After the complaint was dismissed, the Supreme Court decided DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005), and Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508 (2005). Those cases held that AICRA had removed the Oswin requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate a serious impact to survive a motion for summary judgment. Because the complaint was dismissed for failure of proofs that are no longer required, the dismissal must be reversed and the matter remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

 

The claims of all other plaintiffs have been resolved and are not affected by this appeal.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3833-04T2

February 10, 2006