NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0306-24
MADELAINE WALLACE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. MCGINNIS,
Defendant-Respondent. _________________________
Submitted June 16, 2025 – Decided December 12, 2025
Before Judges Mawla and Smith.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-0353-22.
Rudikh & Associates, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Zlata Rudikh, on the briefs).
Flanagan, Barone & O'Brien, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Kerri A. McDowell, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SMITH, J.A.D. Plaintiff appeals the trial court's two orders granting summary judgment
in defendant's favor and denying her motion for reconsideration, respectively.
We affirm for the reasons which follow.
I. Plaintiff, Madelaine Wallace, was rear-ended by defendant Michael
McGinnis, while waiting to make a left-hand turn on Old Bridge Turnpike in
Sayreville, New Jersey on January 27, 2020. She sued defendant for negligence
and claimed she suffered permanent injuries from the accident.
The parties engaged in discovery, during which time the trial court
extended deadlines on eight separate occasions. At plaintiff’s request, the trial
court granted the most recent extension on February 16, 2024, finding good
cause. The court extended the discovery end date to May 31, 2024, resulting in
a discovery period of over 700 days. On the same day, the trial court also
ordered plaintiff to complete an independent medical examination and produce
medical expert reports to defendant by March 29, 2024. The court then
scheduled trial for July 8, 2024.
Plaintiff failed to provide defendant with any medical expert reports
before discovery expired, and defendant moved for summary judgment on June
6, 2024. Defendant asserted plaintiff had not established permanent injury
A-0306-24 2 through objective and credible medical evidence via an expert. Plaintiff's
counsel requested an adjournment of trial to August 19, 2024, which was
granted.
Plaintiff then amended her answers to interrogatories to include the expert
report of Dr. Munir Ahmed, dated February 22, 2024. Plaintiff stated that
counsel contacted Dr. Ahmed's office weekly before discovery expired, then
daily thereafter, inquiring about the status of the report, however Dr. Ahmed did
not provide the report until July 12, 2024.
On July 16, 2024, defendant moved to bar Dr. Ahmed's expert report and
testimony at trial because plaintiff failed to timely submit discovery. After
argument, the trial court found plaintiff failed to produce discovery until well
past the deadline. It barred the late report, finding that plaintiff submitted it
without explanation for the delay and well after the original trial date. Because
plaintiff could not provide evidence to support her claims, the trial court granted
summary judgment, dismissing her complaint with prejudice.
On August 13, 2024, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of both orders.
The court again found plaintiff presented no explanation for her failure to move
to extend discovery. It determined that presentation of Dr. Ahmed's expert
report so close to trial undermined best practices and would have required an
A-0306-24 3 additional trial adjournment to allow for depositions to occur. This appeal
followed.
II.
A.
A trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo,
applying the same standard used by the trial court. N.J. Coal. of Auto. Retailers,
Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 261 N.J. 348, 357 (2025). We view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether no genuine
issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Id. at 357-58; Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582
(2021).
B.
"Generally, '[a] trial court's resolution of a discovery issue is entitled to
substantial deference and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.'"
DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 N.J. 212, 228 (2023) (alteration in original) (quoting State
v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582, 593 (2016)). On review, "[w]e defer to the trial court's
decision so long as it is not 'so wide [of] the mark that a manifest denial of
justice resulted.'" Ibid. (second alteration in original) (quoting Rowe v. Bell &
Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531, 551-52 (2019)).
A-0306-24 4 C.
We review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for reconsideration
under Rule 4:49-2 for abuse of discretion. Branch, 244 N.J. at 582. Abuse of
discretion occurs when the trial court makes its decision "without rational
explanation, inexplicably depart[s] from established policies, or rest[s] on an
impermissible basis." Kornbleuth v. Westover, 241 N.J. 289, 300-01 (2020)
(alterations in original) (quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J.
449, 467 (2012)).
"A motion for reconsideration is meant to 'seek review of an order based
on the evidence before the court on the initial motion . . . not to serve as a vehicle
to introduce new evidence in order to cure an inadequacy in the motion record.'"
Triffin v. SHS Grp., LLC, 466 N.J. Super. 460, 466 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting
Cap. Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App.
Div. 2008)). Therefore, reconsideration should only be granted when "1) the
[c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational
basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to
appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence . . . ." Ibid.
(alterations in original) (quoting Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384
(App. Div. 1996)). "The magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer
A-0306-24 5 for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id. at 466-67 (quoting Palombi v.
Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010)).
III.
Plaintiff argues summary judgment was inappropriate as Dr. Ahmed's
medical expert report created a genuine issue of material fact as to the
permanence of her injuries. We are unpersuaded.
N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) requires a legally licensed physician's certification of
permanency of injuries suffered in a car accident as a prerequisite to a
negligence action. Plaintiff did not provide her physician's certification before
discovery expired. Although plaintiff later produced Dr. Ahmed's report,
plaintiff did not include a "precise explanation that details the cause of delay
and what actions were taken during the elapsed time," with the certification of
due diligence as required by Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 429 (2006). It
follows that plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 4:17-7 when amending her
interrogatories past the discovery deadline and the expert report offered cannot
be considered. Summary judgment was appropriate on this record.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0306-24
MADELAINE WALLACE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. MCGINNIS,
Defendant-Respondent. _________________________
Submitted June 16, 2025 – Decided December 12, 2025
Before Judges Mawla and Smith.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-0353-22.
Rudikh & Associates, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Zlata Rudikh, on the briefs).
Flanagan, Barone & O'Brien, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Kerri A. McDowell, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SMITH, J.A.D. Plaintiff appeals the trial court's two orders granting summary judgment
in defendant's favor and denying her motion for reconsideration, respectively.
We affirm for the reasons which follow.
I. Plaintiff, Madelaine Wallace, was rear-ended by defendant Michael
McGinnis, while waiting to make a left-hand turn on Old Bridge Turnpike in
Sayreville, New Jersey on January 27, 2020. She sued defendant for negligence
and claimed she suffered permanent injuries from the accident.
The parties engaged in discovery, during which time the trial court
extended deadlines on eight separate occasions. At plaintiff’s request, the trial
court granted the most recent extension on February 16, 2024, finding good
cause. The court extended the discovery end date to May 31, 2024, resulting in
a discovery period of over 700 days. On the same day, the trial court also
ordered plaintiff to complete an independent medical examination and produce
medical expert reports to defendant by March 29, 2024. The court then
scheduled trial for July 8, 2024.
Plaintiff failed to provide defendant with any medical expert reports
before discovery expired, and defendant moved for summary judgment on June
6, 2024. Defendant asserted plaintiff had not established permanent injury
A-0306-24 2 through objective and credible medical evidence via an expert. Plaintiff's
counsel requested an adjournment of trial to August 19, 2024, which was
granted.
Plaintiff then amended her answers to interrogatories to include the expert
report of Dr. Munir Ahmed, dated February 22, 2024. Plaintiff stated that
counsel contacted Dr. Ahmed's office weekly before discovery expired, then
daily thereafter, inquiring about the status of the report, however Dr. Ahmed did
not provide the report until July 12, 2024.
On July 16, 2024, defendant moved to bar Dr. Ahmed's expert report and
testimony at trial because plaintiff failed to timely submit discovery. After
argument, the trial court found plaintiff failed to produce discovery until well
past the deadline. It barred the late report, finding that plaintiff submitted it
without explanation for the delay and well after the original trial date. Because
plaintiff could not provide evidence to support her claims, the trial court granted
summary judgment, dismissing her complaint with prejudice.
On August 13, 2024, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of both orders.
The court again found plaintiff presented no explanation for her failure to move
to extend discovery. It determined that presentation of Dr. Ahmed's expert
report so close to trial undermined best practices and would have required an
A-0306-24 3 additional trial adjournment to allow for depositions to occur. This appeal
followed.
II.
A.
A trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo,
applying the same standard used by the trial court. N.J. Coal. of Auto. Retailers,
Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 261 N.J. 348, 357 (2025). We view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether no genuine
issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Id. at 357-58; Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582
(2021).
B.
"Generally, '[a] trial court's resolution of a discovery issue is entitled to
substantial deference and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.'"
DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 N.J. 212, 228 (2023) (alteration in original) (quoting State
v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582, 593 (2016)). On review, "[w]e defer to the trial court's
decision so long as it is not 'so wide [of] the mark that a manifest denial of
justice resulted.'" Ibid. (second alteration in original) (quoting Rowe v. Bell &
Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531, 551-52 (2019)).
A-0306-24 4 C.
We review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for reconsideration
under Rule 4:49-2 for abuse of discretion. Branch, 244 N.J. at 582. Abuse of
discretion occurs when the trial court makes its decision "without rational
explanation, inexplicably depart[s] from established policies, or rest[s] on an
impermissible basis." Kornbleuth v. Westover, 241 N.J. 289, 300-01 (2020)
(alterations in original) (quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J.
449, 467 (2012)).
"A motion for reconsideration is meant to 'seek review of an order based
on the evidence before the court on the initial motion . . . not to serve as a vehicle
to introduce new evidence in order to cure an inadequacy in the motion record.'"
Triffin v. SHS Grp., LLC, 466 N.J. Super. 460, 466 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting
Cap. Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App.
Div. 2008)). Therefore, reconsideration should only be granted when "1) the
[c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational
basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to
appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence . . . ." Ibid.
(alterations in original) (quoting Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384
(App. Div. 1996)). "The magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer
A-0306-24 5 for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id. at 466-67 (quoting Palombi v.
Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010)).
III.
Plaintiff argues summary judgment was inappropriate as Dr. Ahmed's
medical expert report created a genuine issue of material fact as to the
permanence of her injuries. We are unpersuaded.
N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) requires a legally licensed physician's certification of
permanency of injuries suffered in a car accident as a prerequisite to a
negligence action. Plaintiff did not provide her physician's certification before
discovery expired. Although plaintiff later produced Dr. Ahmed's report,
plaintiff did not include a "precise explanation that details the cause of delay
and what actions were taken during the elapsed time," with the certification of
due diligence as required by Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 429 (2006). It
follows that plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 4:17-7 when amending her
interrogatories past the discovery deadline and the expert report offered cannot
be considered. Summary judgment was appropriate on this record.
When discovery has expired, litigants seeking to introduce further
evidence must demonstrate their diligence in obtaining same. R. 4:17-7. As
such, the trial court here considered best practices rules, as outlined in Tucci v.
A-0306-24 6 Tropicana Casino & Resort, Inc., 364 N.J. Super. 48, 53 (App. Div. 2003), which
aim to prevent last minute trial adjournments caused by incomplete discovery.
It also considered Vitti v. Brown, 359 N.J. Super. 40, 51-52 (Law Div. 2003),
where the court recognized litigants must move to extend discovery and explain
the circumstances for delay or risk exclusion of the evidence later provided
pursuant to Rule 4:17-7. The trial court properly found that plaintiff's proffer
of Dr. Ahmed's report, without explanation, so close to the start of trial and well
past the discovery deadline, deviated from best practices rules and the Rules of
Court.
Finally, we consider plaintiff's argument that the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied her motion for reconsideration after barring the use of
Dr. Ahmed's report and testimony and then granting summary judgment. She
claims the trial court should have reconsidered its order granting the motions as
it was outside her control that Dr. Ahmed's report was untimely. She contends
Dr. Ahmed's report and testimony is crucial to plaintiff's case. These arguments
do not convince us the court committed reversible error.
Counsel failed to present any new information beyond that presented at
the original motion argument. Plaintiff never offered a reason for failing to
move to extend discovery, despite knowing Dr. Ahmed's office had not yet
A-0306-24 7 provided his report. Even though the doctor's report eventually found its way
into the record, the trial court found counsel was not diligent in applying to
extend the discovery deadlines.
Plaintiff offers no support for the proposition that the trial court based its
decision on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis or failed to consider or
appreciate evidence submitted within the court's deadlines.
The trial court's denial of reconsideration was a proper exercise of
discretion.
Affirmed.
A-0306-24 8