determination whether there exists a "genuine issue" of material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational fact-finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party. In deciding a summary judgment motion, the trial court must apply the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Brill v. 59 (1989).Ī moving party is entitled to summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the record. In reviewing a ruling on a summary judgment motion, we apply the same standard as that governing the trial court. Summary judgment is designed to provide a prompt, businesslike and inexpensive method of resolving cases. We are not persuaded that the exculpatory agreement is clear on its face, and accordingly we reverse entry of judgment in favor of IMA, but we affirm entry of judgment in favor of Palladino pursuant to Crawn v. The court also grounded the dismissal of Bailey's claim against Palladino on the doctrine of assumption of risk with respect to sporting activities. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of David Palladino, another member of IMA, finding that Palladino was an intended beneficiary of the exculpatory agreement. The court found that there was no legal impediment to the enforceability of the exculpatory agreement and, as a consequence, entered summary judgment in favor of IMA and against Bailey. ("IMA") that the agreement was clear on its face and that Bailey freely, voluntarily, and intentionally entered into the exculpatory agreement. The trial court found that Bailey had entered into an exculpatory agreement when he became a member of defendant International Martial Arts Training Center, Inc. This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff Brett Bailey's ("Bailey") claims of negligence. (Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, attorneys Ms. Pustizzi argued the cause for respondent International Martial Arts Training Center, Inc. Stone argued the cause for respondent Dave Palladino (Edwards & Caldwell, attorneys Charles Shaw, of counsel and on the brief Mr. James Fitzgerald argued the cause for appellant (Friedman, Kates, Pearlman & Fitzgerald, attorneys Mr. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |