concurring.
While I agree with the majority that there was no error in defendant’s trial and that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motions *128for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s dismissal of defendant’s second assignment of error and its characterization and analysis of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dogwood Dev. & Mmgt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008).
Appellate courts have a strong preference for deciding cases on the merits. Our Supreme Court’s recent decisions in State v. Hart, 361 N.C. 309, 644 S.E.2d 201 (2007), and Dogwood expressed a policy to decide cases on their merits and thus refrain from dismissing cases for nonjurisdictional rules violations that do not impede the review of the case. This policy not only ensures fundamental fairness to the litigants involved, but also benefits the bar and facilitates open access to the equal administration of justice in our courts.
Defendant’s second assignment of error states: “2. The Court’s denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict under Rule 50 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendant’s Motion for New Trial pursuant to Rule 59(a)(7) and (8) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.” I do not agree with the majority that defendant’s second assignment of error constitutes a substantial violation of Rule 10(c)(1) warranting dismissal of the issue. As our Supreme Court has held, “[r]ules of practice and procedure are devised to promote the ends of justice, not to defeat them.” Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 194, 657 S.E.2d at 363 (citation omitted; alteration in original). As such, “every violation of the rules does not require dismissal of the appeal or the issue[.]" Hart, 361 N.C. at 311, 644 S.E.2d at 202 (emphasis added). Indeed, “only in the most egregious instances of nonjurisdictional default will dismissal of the appeal be appropriate.” Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 200, 657 S.E.2d at 366. Rather, “the appellate court may not consider sanctions of any sort when a party’s noncompliance with nonjurisdictional requirements of the rules does not rise to the level of a ‘substantial failure’ or ‘gross violation.’ ” Id. at 199, 657 S.E.2d at 366.
In the case sub judice, defendant’s second assignment of error did not “rise to the level of a ‘substantial failure’ or ‘gross violation[,]’ ” id., and certainly did not “ ‘impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process.’ ” Hart, 361 N.C. at 312, 644 S.E.2d at 203 (citation omitted).1 As our Supreme Court *129indicated in Dogwood, dismissal of an issue is not appropriate unless a party’s “noncompliance impairs the court’s task of review” and “review on the merits would frustrate the adversarial process.” Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 200, 657 S.E.2d at 366-67. Accordingly, this Court “should simply perform its core function[,]” id. at 199, 657 S.E.2d at 366, and review the merits of defendant’s appeal as to the trial court’s denial of his motions.2
Regarding defendant’s other rules violations in this appeal, I agree with the majority that monetary sanctions are appropriate.
Thus, while I agree with the outcome of this decision, I concur in the result only and write separately for the aforementioned reasons.
. It is of note that many of the procedural problems faced by the litigants in the case at bar and in other similar cases before our court arise from the violation of the assignment of error requirement found in Appellate Rule 10(c)(1). Recently, the North *129Carolina Bar Association submitted to the Supreme Court a proposal to abolish the assignment of error requirement. This proposal was endorsed by the N.C. Advocates for Justice and the N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.
. I find it pertinent to remind the Bar that in future cases the offending attorney’s response to a motion to dismiss for appellate rule violations should be to file a motion to amend his brief and correct those violations.