ABULKHAIR v. PRUDENTIAL, A-1348-10T2. (2011)
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey
Number: innjco20110325379
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 25, 2011
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2011
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals from an October 1, 2010 order granting summary judgment dismissing his complaint. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wertheimer's October 1, 2010 written decision. Plaintiff's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed. FootNotes 1. Although the caption identified Prudential as a defendant-respondent, the actual defendant was High
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals from an October 1, 2010 order granting summary judgment dismissing his complaint. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wertheimer's October 1, 2010 written decision. Plaintiff's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed. FootNotes 1. Although the caption identified Prudential as a defendant-respondent, the actual defendant was High ..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from an October 1, 2010 order granting summary judgment dismissing his complaint. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wertheimer's October 1, 2010 written decision. Plaintiff's arguments do not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
FootNotes
1. Although the caption identified Prudential as a defendant-respondent, the actual defendant was High Point Preferred Insurance Company, which was improperly pled as Prudential.
Source: Leagle
