Case Name: VICTOR MANUEL CABALLERO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. RICARDO MARTINEZ AND LEROY SMITH, DEFENDANTS, AND THE UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND BOARD AND KAREN L. SUTER, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2005-03-10
Citations: 376 N.J. Super. 175
Docket Number: 
Parties: VICTOR MANUEL CABALLERO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. RICARDO MARTINEZ AND LEROY SMITH, DEFENDANTS, AND THE UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND BOARD AND KAREN L. SUTER, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 376
Pages: 175–184

Head Matter:
869 A.2d 939
VICTOR MANUEL CABALLERO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. RICARDO MARTINEZ AND LEROY SMITH, DEFENDANTS, AND THE UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND BOARD AND KAREN L. SUTER, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted February 16, 2005
Decided March 10, 2005.
Before Judges CONLEY, BRAITHWAITE and LISA.
Victor M. Covelli, attorney for appellant.
Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, L.L.P., attorneys for respondents (Jeffrey C. Maziarz, on the brief; John C. Simons, of counsel).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal following an evidentiary hearing of his complaint against the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund for automobile accident non-economic damages. The complaint was dismissed based upon the trial judge's conclusion that, at the time of the accident, he was not a "qualified person" as required by N.J.S.A. 39:6-62. On appeal, plaintiff contends:
POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT DISREGARDED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN FINDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THE UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND.
POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT IGNORED EXISTING CASELAW IN DETERMINING THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF NEW JERSEY.
POINT III: THE PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW WHEN THE COURT RULED HE WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF NEW JERSEY.
We have considered these contentions and reject them. We affirm for the reasons set forth by Judge Jamie S. Perri whose written opinion is reported at 376 N.J.Super. 223, 869 A.2d 969 (Law Div.2005).
Affirmed.