Ken Vercammen's NJ Laws email newsletter July 6, 2003 #129 In this issue: 1. Car accidents- Injury Must Meet Serious Impact Test for suit to be filed if you have Lawsuit threshold on your car insurance. 2. Car accidents- Preexisting Injuries Must Meet permanent injury/ Verbal Standard. 3. Police canąt offer for defendant to make łoff-the-record˛ statement. 4 Search of Residence Not Permitted where insufficient probable cause. 5. Law Office move to Edison ________ 1. Car accidents- Injury Must Meet Serious Impact Test for suit to be filed if you have Lawsuit threshold on your car insurance. James v. Torres 354 NJ Super. ___ (App. Div. 2002). The amended verbal-threshold statute, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8 in the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act, incorporates the limitations and the approach adopted in Oswin v. Shaw prior to the statute's amendment, and a plaintiff must demonstrate that the injuries she received in the accident have had a serious impact on her life in order to have her case submitted to the jury -- to the extent that Compere v. Collins holds otherwise, it is disapproved; the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's action for injuries allegedly sustained in an auto accident is affirmed, since she failed to establish that her injuries have had a serious impact on her life. Source: 170 N.J.L.J. 541 2. Car accidents- Preexisting Injuries Must Meet permanent injury/ Verbal Standard. Ostasz v. Howard 357 NJ Super. 65 (App. Div. 2003). Nothing in the language or history of the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act of 1998 (AICRA) suggests a legislative aim to modify the proof requirements for a verbal-threshold case, and the requirements of Polk v. Daconceicao continue to govern verbal-threshold cases under AICRA; the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint here, since plaintiff did not provide the required comparative analysis of pre-existing injuries and those sustained in the auto accident that gave rise to this lawsuit. Source: 171 N.J.L.J. 319 3. Police canąt offer for defendant to make łoff-the-record˛ statement. State v. Pillar ___ NJ Super. ___ A-2890-00T4 (App. Div. March 11, 2003). An in-custody defendant, having just received Miranda warnings, asked the police officer if he could make an "off-the-record" statement. Although believing that there was no such thing as an "off-the-record" statement after administration of Miranda warnings, the officer agreed that defendant could make such a statement. In direct and immediate response to that assurance, defendant made an incriminating statement. We held that defendant's statement was inadmissible in that it was obtained in violation of Miranda and was involuntary. The error was not harmless and a new trial is required. We also held that a statement concerning the details of the offense made by the victim to an examining physician to whom the victim had been referred by DYFS was not admissible as either a fresh complaint or under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(4). The doctor's testimony as to the results of her physical examination and the significance of her findings was, however, admissible. 4 Search of Residence Not Permitted where insufficient probable cause. State v. Jones ___ NJ Super. ___ A-4414-01T4 (App. Div. February 28, 2003). The search of a residential dwelling was unlawful for two reasons: (1) the warrant was not supported by probable cause since the officers took no steps to corroborate the "controlled buys" of an informant of previously untested reliability. Most significantly, there was no verification that the substance allegedly purchased by the informant was likely cocaine; (2) the warrant lacked a reasonable, particularized suspicion that a "non-knock" entry was required. The fact that an individual involved in two of the informant's earlier buys had a 7-year-old arrest for assault and weapons charges, which resulted in a fourth-degree weapons conviction, did not provide the necessary basis for such an entry. 5. Law Office move to Edison As we previously advised, we purchased a building at 2053 Woodbridge Ave., Edison and will be moving our law office this summer. Many friends and clients asked when are we moving. We want to renovate the building to create a modern, state of the art office. Our contractors have finished air conditioning installation, sheet rock, painting, computer wiring, new windows, and electrical work. We hope to have carpeting finished within the next 10 days. We hope to move by July 31. Stay tuned. ________________________ Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1 Kenneth Vercammen (Phone) 732-906-2180 (Fax) 732-906-2155 website: www.njlaws.com Editor's Note and Disclaimer: All materials Copyright 2003. You may pass along the information on the NJ Laws Newsletter and website, provided the name and address of the Law Office is included. Always schedule an office appointment with an experienced attorney when you have a legal matter. The Rules of Court limit an attorney's ability to discuss matters over the phone. If you have legal questions, you should schedule an in- office consultation. REMOVALS TO BE DONE BY WEBMASTER LONEKEEP.COM To remove, just email back & type in subject or body remove. Removals are performed by the webmaster once per month.