SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0911-17T1

FRANCIENNA GRANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DANILO G. YBANEZ, DMD,

and DANILO G. YBANEZ,

DMD, LLC,

Defendants-Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted March 4, 2019 – Decided March 28, 2019

Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Cape May County, Docket No. L-0470-16.

Francienna Grant, appellant pro se.

Crammer, Bishop & O'Brien, attorneys for respondents

(Timothy B. Crammer, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-0911-17T1

Plaintiff Francienna Grant appeals from the Honorable J. Christopher 

Gibson, J.S.C.'s, order granting summary judgment to defendants Danilo G. 

Ybanez, D.M.D., and Danilo G. Ybanez D.M.D., LLC, and dismissing plaintiff's 

medical malpractice complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

We recite the relevant facts and procedural history from the record. 

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging medical malpractice in 

the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part on January 

28, 2016. On March 4, 2016, defendants filed their answer. Plaintiff 

subsequently filed a motion to transfer the case to the Law Division and file an 

amended complaint, which the trial court granted on August 25, 2016. Due to a 

clerical error, the amended complaint was not filed until November 22, 2016.

On November 30, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to enter default based on 

defendants' failure to timely file an answer to the amended complaint. On the 

same date, plaintiff provided an "affidavit . . . pursuant to [N.J.S.A.] 2A:53A28" because "defendant Danilo G. Ybanez fail[ed] to comply with rules of 

discovery which hindered the plaintiff from progressing [sic] an additional 

affidavit of merit[.]"1 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based 

on plaintiff's failure to timely file an affidavit of merit on December 15, 2016. 

 

1

 There is no indication on the affidavit that it was filed with the trial court.
3

A-0911-17T1

On February 24, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying plaintiff's 

November 30, 2016 motion to enter default because the time for defendants to 

file an answer had not elapsed. The trial court also denied defendants' motion 

to dismiss the complaint based on plaintiff's failure to file an affidavit of merit 

because the time to file had not yet elapsed. The trial court gave defendants 

until March 31, 2017 to file an answer, and the answer was filed on March 22, 

2017. 

On April 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the 

February 24, 2017 order, to strike any filings subsequent to February 24, 2017 

for lack of jurisdiction, to enter default, and to enter default judgment against 

defendants. Defendants filed opposition to plaintiff's motion on May 5, 2017. 

On May 8, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint 

without prejudice based on plaintiff's failure to timely answer interrogatories. 

On June 29, 2017, the trial court denied plaintiff's April 10 motion in its 

entirety. On the same day, the trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss 

plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. 

On July 17, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the trial 

court's June 29 denial of her motion for reconsideration. We denied plaintiff's 

motion on August 11, 2017. 
4

A-0911-17T1

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on July 21, 2017 due to 

plaintiff's continued failure to timely serve an affidavit of merit. 

On August 28, 2017, plaintiff filed several motions in the Appellate 

Division, including a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. 

On September 12, 2017, the trial court granted defendants' motion for 

summary judgment based on the plaintiff's failure to timely serve an affidavit of 

merit and dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. 

On October 26, 2017, we granted plaintiff's motion to extend the time to 

file a notice of appeal and ruled that plaintiff's August 28 motion was converted 

to a notice of appeal and was considered timely.

On December 29, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion with this court to "strike" 

the trial court's September 12, 2017 grant of summary judgment. Plaintiff 

argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant summary 

judgment. Her motion also sought additional relief, including a request to 

amend her notice of appeal to include the order granting summary judgment. 

On February 8, 2018, we granted plaintiff's motion to amend her appeal, but 

denied all other requested relief. 

On this appeal, plaintiff seeks reversal of the trial court's June 29, 2017 

order denying her motion for reconsideration, the trial court's June 29, 2017 
5

A-0911-17T1

order dismissing her complaint without prejudice for failure to answer 

interrogatories, and the trial court's September 12, 2017 order granting summary 

judgment to defendant. 

Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we 

affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Gibson's well-reasoned 

oral decision. We add only the following comments. 

Plaintiff argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary 

judgment because it previously dismissed her complaint without prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1). We disagree. 

Rule 4:23-5 provides for the dismissal of a complaint without prejudice if 

a party fails to comply with discovery rules. R. 4:23-5(a)(1). The dismissal of 

a complaint without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits. See Czepas 

v. Schenk, 362 N.J. Super. 216, 228 (App. Div. 2003) (citing O'Loughlin v. Nat'l 

Cmty. Bank, 338 N.J. Super. 592, 603 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 169 N.J. 606 

(2001)). Further, a dismissal of a complaint under Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) does not 

dispose of the trial court's jurisdiction over the matter as the trial court maintains 

jurisdiction to dismiss with prejudice if the party continues to fail to comply 

with discovery rules. See R. 4:23-5(a)(2). 
6

A-0911-17T1

The requirement to serve an affidavit of merit is governed by N.J.S.A. 

2A:53A-27, which provides in pertinent part:

In any action for damages for personal injuries, 

wrongful death or property damage resulting from an 

alleged act of malpractice or negligence by a licensed 

person in his profession or occupation, the plaintiff 

shall, within 60 days following the date of filing of the 

answer to the complaint by the defendant, provide each 

defendant with an affidavit of an appropriate licensed 

person that there exists a reasonable probability that the 

care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the 

treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the 

complaint, fell outside acceptable professional or 

occupational standards or treatment practices. The 

court may grant no more than one additional period, not 

to exceed 60 days, to file the affidavit pursuant to this 

section, upon a finding of good cause.

 

The purpose of the requirement that plaintiffs provide an affidavit of merit 

is to "identify and eliminate unmeritorious claims against licensed professionals

and to permit meritorious claims to proceed efficiently through the litigation 

process." Meehan v. Antonelli, 226 N.J. 216, 229 (2016) (citing Hubbard v. 

Reed, 168 N.J. 387, 395 (2001)). Our Supreme Court has recently held that a 

party may not take advantage of a dismissal without prejudice to get more time 

to file an affidavit of merit. See A.T. v. Cohen, 231 N.J. 337, 352 (2017). The 

Court noted that allowing dismissal without prejudice to provide parties with 
7

A-0911-17T1

more time "would prolong litigation and potentially eviscerate the [statute's]

policy of weeding out, early on, non-meritorious malpractice cases." Ibid. 

An affidavit of merit is not required 

if the plaintiff provides a sworn statement in lieu of the 

affidavit setting forth that: the defendant has failed to 

provide plaintiff with medical records or other records 

or information having a substantial bearing on 

preparation of the affidavit; a written request therefor 

along with, if necessary, a signed authorization by the 

plaintiff for release of the medical records or other 

records or information requested, has been made by 

certified mail or personal service; and at least 45 days 

have elapsed since the defendant received the request. 

[N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-28.]

A plaintiff's statement in lieu of affidavit of merit "require[s] a plaintiff to 

identify with specificity any medical records or other information [s]he believes 

are needed to prepare an affidavit of merit, in order to trigger the running of the 

forty-five day period for a response." Scaffidi v. Horvitz, 343 N.J. Super. 552, 

559 (App. Div. 2001). 

In the instant matter, plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of merit. After 

review of the record, it was found that she provided an affidavit that she 

characterized as a statement in lieu of an affidavit of merit. However, plaintiff's 

statement in lieu did not identify any documents that were needed in order to 

prepare an affidavit of merit. Thus, plaintiff's statement in lieu does not meet 
8

A-0911-17T1

the requirements to trigger an extension of time to file an affidavit of merit. 

Accordingly, because plaintiff never filed an affidavit of merit, the trial court 

did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing 

plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. 

To the extent any arguments are not addressed herein, they are without 

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.