However, because this represents an issue of first impression, the Court s decision will be applied prospectively to all similar causes of action accruing after the date of this opinion.ġ. HELD : A plaintiff must give a public entity written notice, pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, prior to filing a common law intentional tort action against a public employee. The Supreme Court granted Bettinger s petition for certification and further granted the Attorney General amicus curiae status.
Thus, the panel concluded that Velez was not required to file a notice of claim with the City to assert her common law assault and battery claim against Bettinger. 59:3-14, which excludes outrageous conduct from statutory immunity. However, the panel also found that although the 1994 expansion of the Act s notice requirements encompasses actions against public employees, it was not intended to modify the plain meaning of N.J.S.A.
In respect of the assault and battery claim against Bettinger, the panel concluded that Velez s verbal notification given to various City officials did not satisfy the Act s notice requirements because the notice must be in writing. In a published opinion, the Appellate Division reversed the grant of summary judgment on Velez s assault and battery claim against Bettinger and the LAD claims against the City, but affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims.
HOUSE OF VELEZ PART 2 NO COMMENTARY TRIAL
On appeal, Velez challenged the trial court s order, except for the dismissal of the LAD claims against Bettinger. On reconsideration, the trial court dismissed the entirety of Velez s complaint, including the LAD claims, ruling that Velez had failed to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact in respect of the LAD claims, and further that her failure to file a tort claim notice with the City within ninety days of the incident barred her common law claims. Although Velez s cross-motion was denied, Bettinger voluntarily dismissed his counterclaims. 59:8-8, but denied their motions in respect of the LAD claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bettinger and the City in respect of Velez s common law claims due to her failure to give timely notice under N.J.S.A. The City and Bettinger answered, and Bettinger filed a counterclaim alleging malicious prosecution and defamation.įollowing discovery, Bettinger and the City each moved for summary judgment, and Velez cross-motioned for summary judgment and for dismissal of Bettinger s counterclaims. On November 10, 1999, Velez filed a complaint against the City and Bettinger, asserting various common law tort claims, including assault and battery, and violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The City did not investigate or respond to her allegations. Shortly after that encounter, Velez sustained an unrelated on-the-job injury and took an extended leave of absence from December 1997 through March 1999.Īlthough Velez claimed that she orally reported the incident involving Bettinger to numerous NID management employees, union officials, family members, family doctors, and coworkers, she never directly notified the City in writing.
When she extended her hand to shake his, Bettinger allegedly hugged and kissed her, and then fondled and groped her before she struggled free. Ultimately, Velez learned that Bettinger s efforts had resulted in a favorable disposition of that personal matter, so on December 1, 1997, she went to Bettinger s office to thank him personally for his help. In October or November 1997, Velez sought Bettinger s assistance, in his capacity as councilman, in a personal matter. Defendant, Arnold Bettinger, was a City councilman and was the Hudson County Division Chief in charge of central services. Plaintiff, Nancy Velez, is a former employee of the City of Jersey City, where she worked in the Neighborhood Improvement Division (NID). 59:1-1 to 12-3, apply to common law intentional tort claims. The issue in this appeal is whether the notice of claim requirements under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (the Act) N.J.S.A. WALLACE, J., writing for a unanimous Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court.
It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court.
0 kommentar(er)
