DENNIS ADLER, et al. v. JOSEPH S. GIGLIO, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4088-05T14088-05T1

DENNIS ADLER and JOANNE ADLER,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JOSEPH S. GIGLIO and

JOSEPH GIGLIO, JR.,

Defendants-Respondents.

_________________________________________

 

Argued March 6, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Docket No. L-156-04.

Jeffrey M. Thiel argued the cause for appellants (Petrillo & Goldberg, attorneys; Mr. Thiel, on the brief).

Andrea Hemschoot argued the cause for respondent Joseph S. Giglio (Debra Hart, attorneys; Ms. Hemschoot, on the brief).

Edward N. Romanik argued the cause for respondent Joseph Giglio, Jr. (Powell, Birchmeier & Powell, attorneys; Donald A. Powell, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs Dennis Adler and Joanne Adler, his wife, appeal from the November 18, 2005, and March 7, 2006, orders of the Law Division, granting summary judgment to defendants Joseph Giglio, Jr., and Joseph S. Giglio, respectively. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, contending that they had breached their respective duties of care owed to him. We disagree and affirm.

A trial court will grant summary judgment to the moving party "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c); see also Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995). "An issue of fact is genuine only if, considering the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the parties on the motion, together with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the non-moving party, would require submission of the issue to the trier of fact." R. 4:46-2(c).

On appeal, "the propriety of the trial court's order is a legal, not a factual, question." Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 3.2.1 on R. 2:10-2 (2006). "We employ the same standard that governs trial courts in reviewing summary judgment orders." Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998).

We have considered the arguments advanced by plaintiff, in light of the record below, and find the arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant an extensive discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Morgan in his oral decision of November 18, 2005, and his statement of reasons affixed to his order of March 7, 2006, determining that neither defendant had breached a duty of care to plaintiff.

Affirmed.

 

Joanne Adler sued per quod. For purposes of this opinion, unless otherwise expressed, "plaintiff" shall only refer to Dennis Adler.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4088-05T1

March 28, 2007