PAUL A. MITCHELL VS. MICHAEL GRAINGER(L-7440-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: November 16, 2017
• Docket: A-4094-16T4
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4094-16T4

PAUL A. MITCHELL and MALIKA HAYNESWORTH,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

MICHAEL GRAINGER, CITY OF NEWARK and/or NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellants. _________________________________

Argued telephonically November 1, 2017 – Decided November 16, 2017

Before Judges Sabatino and Rose.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-7440- 16.

Handel T. Destinvil argued the cause for appellants (Kenyatta K. Stewart, Acting Corporation Counsel, City of Newark- Department of Law, attorney; Mr. Destinvil, on the briefs).

Andrew J. Calcagno argued the cause for respondents (Calcagno & Associates, LLC, attorneys; Michael J. Chelland, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Defendants Michael Grainger and City of Newark appeal from a

March 3, 2017 Law Division order denying their motion to dismiss

the complaint filed by plaintiffs Paul A. Mitchell and Malika

Haynesworth, and an April 13, 2017 order denying their motion for

reconsideration of the March 3, 2017 order. In both rulings, the

trial court did not sufficiently "find the facts and state its

conclusions of law" as required by Rule 1:7-4(a). For that reason,

and also because of the limited nature of the record, we vacate

the orders and remand this matter to the trial court for further

proceedings.

The record on appeal discloses the following minimal facts

and procedural history. On October 30, 2014, when walking in the

intersection near Norfolk and Orange Streets, plaintiffs were

struck by a City of Newark police vehicle operated by Michael

Grainger. On November 26, 2014, plaintiffs each filed a notice

of tort claim setting forth a general description of the accident

and a limited summary of their injuries. On December 2, 2014,

defendants advised plaintiffs that the notices of claim were

incomplete, that is, they were missing authorizations for medical

releases, photographs, itemized medical bills and records, and

automobile insurance information. The record on appeal indicates

2 A-4094-16T4 plaintiffs did not respond to defendants' December 2, 2014

correspondence.1

On February 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with

the notice provision of the Tort Claims Act pursuant to Rule 4:6-

2(e), N.J.S.A. 59:8-4(d) and N.J.S.A. 59:8-6. In support of their

motion, defendants provided the motion judge with a copy of the

City of Newark's specialized claim form, pursuant to N.J.S.A.

59:8-6, requiring plaintiffs to provide to defendants, "itemized

bills and records" and signed HIPPA authorizations, and proof that

plaintiffs had not complied with these requirements.

The trial court denied the purportedly unopposed motion on

the papers.2 Without finding any facts or making any legal

1 During oral argument before us, plaintiffs' counsel represented his office forwarded to defendants "a HIPPA release form," and records from St. Michael's Hospital and "Clinton Chiropractic" after they filed their respective notices of claim but prior to filing the instant lawsuit. These documents were not provided in defendants' appendix; plaintiffs did not file an appendix. 2 The order indicates the motion was unopposed. However, during oral argument before us, defendants stated they initially filed a motion to dismiss the complaint solely on behalf of the City of Newark. Plaintiffs opposed that motion. Defendants withdrew the motion and then refiled to add defendant Michael Grainger. Defendants acknowledge, therefore, that the instant motion was opposed at least initially. However, defendants' merits brief claims plaintiffs "made no argument in opposition that their failure to comply with the requirements of the City's specialized

3 A-4094-16T4 conclusions, the court denied the motion, entering an order with

the following notation:

Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 59:8-4. See Guerrero v. Newark, 216 N.J. Super. 66 (App. Div. 1987).

On March 27, 2017, defendants filed a motion for

reconsideration of the court's March 3, 2017 order. Plaintiffs

opposed the motion. In their supporting brief, defendants argued

that the basis of their motion to dismiss was failure to comply

with the specialized notice provisions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-

6, and not N.J.S.A. 59:8-4.

On April 13, 2017, the court decided defendants' motion for

reconsideration on the papers, entering an order with the following

notation:

Moving party has failed to meet their burden pursuant to R. 4:49-2 of presenting sufficient evidence to warrant granting [r]econsideration and [d]efendants' arguments as to N.J.S.A. 59:8-6 were without sufficient facts to have granted the requested relief.

On appeal, defendant argues the motion judge did not cite to

any caselaw, nor provide "guidance as to what additional

information . . . was necessary to sufficiently prove [p]laintiffs'

claim form . . . constituted substantial compliance with N.J.S.A. 59:8-6."

4 A-4094-16T4 failure to provide additional information sought by the City's

specialized claim form."

Rule 1:7-4 mandates that a trial court, "by an opinion or

memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and

state its conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided

by a written order that is appealable as of right[.]" The trial

court must clearly state its factual findings and correlate them

with relevant legal conclusions so the parties and appellate courts

may be informed of the rationale underlying the decision. Monte

v. Monte, 212 N.J. Super. 557, 564-65 (App. Div. 1986). "In the

absence of [adequate] reasons, we are left to conjecture as to

what the judge may have had in mind." Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J.

Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990).

Furthermore, such an omission "imparts to the process an air

of capriciousness that does little to foster confidence in the

judicial system." Twp. of Parsippany-Troy Hills v. Lisbon

Contractors, Inc., 303 N.J. Super. 362, 367 (App. Div.), certif.

denied, 152 N.J. 187 (1997). The “[f]ailure to make explicit

findings and clear statements of reasoning ‘constitutes a

disservice to the litigants, the attorneys, and the appellate

court.'" Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015) (quoting Curtis

v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980)).

5 A-4094-16T4 Here, although the trial court made a conclusory written

finding of plaintiffs' "substantial compliance," it did not

explain why it reached that conclusion, given the City of Newark's

assertion that the necessary medical information had not been

furnished. The sparse record on appeal is not particularly

enlightening. For these reasons, the order dismissing the

complaint in the case before us must be vacated.

Neither the parties nor the trial court should construe our

observations as requiring the trial court to merely make findings

of fact and conclusions of law on remand. Nor do we mean to imply

how defendants' motion should be decided. We suggest only that

the trial court has broad discretion on remand.

For example, if the full documentary record presented before

the trial court is inadequate to resolve whether plaintiff

satisfied defendant's specialized notice of claim, then the court

should permit oral argument and, if necessary, conduct a plenary

hearing, thereafter. However, if the court determines the existing

record in the trial court is adequate to dispose of defendants'

motion, then it should issue an opinion that cites the appropriate

standard of review and sets forth more amplified findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

6 A-4094-16T4 On remand, the trial court should conduct a status conference

with counsel within thirty days to discuss and decide whether the

motion record should be supplemented and, if so, whether a hearing

is necessary. The parties shall then proceed accordingly.

The March 3, 2017 order dismissing the complaint, and the

April 13, 2017 order denying reconsideration of the March 3, 2017

order, are therefore vacated and this matter is remanded for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain

jurisdiction.

7 A-4094-16T4