Patrick v. Precision Marble Inc. et al

Filing 16

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)

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