Law Lessons from Kravec v. Wade (Hunterdon; HNT-L-125-09; Decided by the Hon. Peter A. Buchsbaum, J.S.C., on July 31, 2009):

Picture by walknboston

“A motion for summary judgment is not unlike the unveiling of a statue. The motion substantially supported requires the opposition to remove the shielding cloak and demonstrate the existence of a controversial issue concerning a material fact.” Templeton v. Scudder, 16 N.J. Super. 576, 585 (App. Div. 1951).

A party is entitled to summary judgment 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). “Summary judgment procedure pierces the allegations of the pleadings to show that the facts are otherwise than as alleged.” Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954).

“[A] 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.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520, 530 (1995). Accordingly, “when the evidence is ‘so one-sided that one-party must prevail as a matter of law,’ the trial court should not hesitate to grant summary judgment.” Id.

If a motion for summary judgment is made during discovery, and the incompleteness of discovery is raised as a defense, that party must establish that there is a likelihood that further discovery would supply the necessary information. J. Josephson, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Insurance Company, 293 N. J. Super. 170, 204 (App. Div. 1996) (citing Auster v. Kinoian, 153 N.J. Super. 52 (App. Div. 1977)).

A trial court should not grant summary judgment when the matter is not ripe for such consideration, such as when discovery has not yet been completed. Driscoll Constr. Co. v. DOT, 371 N.J. Super. 304, 317 (App. Div. 2004). The court should afford “every litigant who has a bona fide cause of action or defense the opportunity for full exposure of his case.” Id. (quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Inc., 109 N.J. 189, 193 (1988)).

NOTE: My legal services include family law litigation, arbitration, and mediation.

Technorati Tags: motion-for-summary-judgment, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin