Case Name: JOSEPHINE DE MARCO, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, v. MARY DE MARCO, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1994-05-13
Citations: 274 N.J. Super. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOSEPHINE DE MARCO, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, v. MARY DE MARCO, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 210–210

Head Matter:
643 A.2d 1029
JOSEPHINE DE MARCO, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, v. MARY DE MARCO, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued April 6, 1994
Decided May 13, 1994.
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).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
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:ll-3(e)(l)(E).
Affirmed.