From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DE MARCO v. DE MARCO

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
May 13, 1994
274 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

Argued April 6, 1994 —

Decided May 13, 1994.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County.

Before Judges R.S. COHEN, D'ANNUNZIO and WALLACE.

Michael J. Glassman argued the cause for appellant ( Epler Glassman, attorneys; Mr. Glassman, on the brief).

William E. Nugent argued the cause for respondent ( Nugent, Fitzgerald, McGroarty McFadden, attorneys; Mr. Nugent, on the brief).


The summary judgment of the Law Division dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Josephine DeMarco against her mother defendant Mary DeMarco is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Winkelstein in his written opinion of November 10, 1992 reported at 274 N.J. Super. 257, 643 A.2d 1053 (Law Div.). We are satisfied from our study of the record and the arguments presented that defendant is shielded by parental immunity. See Foldi v. Jeffries, 93 N.J. 533 , 551, 461 A.2d 1145 (1983). We are also satisfied that summary judgment was the appropriate procedure to be employed. Judson v. Peoples Bank Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67 , 73-75, 110 A.2d 24 (1954). All of the issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

DE MARCO v. DE MARCO

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
May 13, 1994
274 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

DE MARCO v. DE MARCO

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPHINE DE MARCO, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, v. MARY DE MARCO…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: May 13, 1994

Citations

274 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 1994)
643 A.2d 1029

Citing Cases

Thorpe v. Wiggan

Which choice was he to make? And it seems to me that this is similar to [ DeMarco v. DeMarco, 274 N.J.Super.…

Nobrega v. Troy-Bilt, LLC

The applicability of parental immunity appears to be decided, at the earliest, in connection with summary…