IN Y KIM v. DENNIS CASARIO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

IN Y KIM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DENNIS CASARIO,

Defendant/Third-Party

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY BREITZMAN,

Third-Party Defendant-

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

December 30, 2016

Submitted December 6, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Messano and Espinosa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-2440-13.

Law Offices of James R. Radmore, P.C., attorneys for appellant (James R. Radmore, on the briefs).

Law Offices of Styliades and Jackson, attorneys for respondent Dennis Casario (G. Samuel Hoffman, of counsel and on the brief).

Callegher, Mensching & Carro, attorneys for respondent Anthony Breitzman (Kathleen T. Eustace, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following an automobile accident, plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendant Dennis Casario, who, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Anthony Breitzman. After three extensions of discovery, the matter proceeded to arbitration, which resulted in a finding that plaintiff was 100% liable for the accident. The report and award of the arbitrators stated, "Parties desiring to reject this award and obtain a trial de novo must file with the division manager a trial de novo request together with a $200 fee within (30) days of today."

Plaintiff did not file a request for a trial de novo. Because no party requested a trial de novo, the trial court dismissed the complaint.

Following the arbitration award, plaintiff joined in a motion for reconsideration that had been filed by the third-party defendant prior to the arbitration, asking the trial court to reconsider its denial of an additional extension of discovery. She now appeals from the denial of that motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

Rule 4:21A-6(b) provides in pertinent part

An order shall be entered dismissing the action following the filing of the arbitrator's award unless

(1) within 30 days after filing of the arbitration award, a party thereto files with the civil division manager and serves on all other parties a notice of rejection of the award and demand for a trial de novo and pays a trial de novo fee . . . .

Because this rule is "to be strictly enforced," Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J.611, 616 (1997) (quoting Hart v. Prop. Mgmt. Sys., 280 N.J. Super.145, 147 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 141 N.J.99 (1995)), an arbitration award will typically "bring about an end to the litigation when neither party has made a timely motion for a trial denovo" unless "extraordinary circumstances" are shown. Id.at 616-17 (quoting Mazakas v. Wray, 205 N.J. Super.367, 371 (App. Div. 1985)).

Plaintiff does not allege that extraordinary circumstances exist to excuse her failure to file a timely request for a trial de novo. Instead, she argues that requesting a trial de novo would have been pointless without a discovery extension and the trial court abused its discretion in finding no exceptional circumstances existed to grant the motion to extend discovery made by the third-party defendant. Therefore, plaintiff contends the motion for reconsideration should have been granted. These arguments are entirely without merit and warrant no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.