ANTHONY MASTROFILIPPO VS. BOROUGH OF LITTLEÂ FERRY(L-3552-12, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3819-15T2

Background

Plaintiffs Anthony and Diane Mastrofilippo sued neighbor Angela Orozco and multiple Little Ferry municipal actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state torts after Orozco accused Anthony of sexual assault, a municipal-court probable-cause finding led to his arrest, and the county prosecutor later dismissed the criminal case.
Complaint asserted municipal liability under § 1983 (Count I), malicious prosecution (II), false arrest (III), defamation and property claims against Orozco (IV–V), and loss of consortium (VI).
Plaintiffs sought personnel and internal affairs records from Borough police; defendants moved for a protective order and dismissal under R. 4:6-2(e).
Trial court denied discovery, granted the Borough defendants’ R. 4:6-2(e) motions and dismissed Counts I–III and VI, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend to add conspiracy, retaliatory prosecution, and abuse of process claims.
A separate administrative dismissal of the claims against Orozco was left intact on procedural grounds and later converted to dismissal with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed the Borough dismissals; this Court reverses those dismissals and remands for further proceedings on discovery, while affirming the administrative dismissal as to Orozco.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge properly dismissed § 1983 municipal-liability, malicious-prosecution, false-arrest, and loss-of-consortium claims based on the municipal-court probable-cause finding	Mastrofilippo: probable cause facts are disputed and for a jury; dismissal at pleading stage was premature	Borough: municipal-court probable-cause finding rebuts claims; probable cause is a defense that defeats these claims	Reversed. At pleading stage plaintiffs alleged facts that, if proven, suggest malicious prosecution, false arrest, § 1983 municipal-liability, and loss of consortium; factual disputes about probable cause preclude dismissal under R. 4:6-2(e)
Whether leave to amend to add conspiracy, retaliatory prosecution (First Amendment § 1983), and abuse of process claims should have been denied as futile	Plaintiffs: proposed claims are supported by allegations that Borough actors encouraged fabricated charges, suppressed exculpatory evidence, and retaliated for protected speech/complaints	Borough: probable-cause finding bars such claims; Supreme Court precedent limits a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim where probable cause exists	Reversed. Amendment should have been allowed; claims are not legally futile at pleading stage and raise issues for later adjudication
Whether plaintiffs were entitled to police personnel and internal affairs records sought in discovery	Plaintiffs: records are highly relevant to municipal liability, training/supervision, and to show pretext for probable cause	Borough: strong public interest in confidentiality of personnel and IA files; discovery should be limited/protected	Remanded. Trial court gave insufficient reasons in denying the motion to compel; on remand the court must reassess balancing relevance and confidentiality and articulate its rationale
Whether the administrative dismissal of claims against Orozco should be vacated	Plaintiffs: procedural mistake and asserted exceptional circumstances justify vacatur	Orozco: plaintiffs failed to comply with procedural requirements; dismissal was proper	Affirmed as to Orozco. Appellate court finds plaintiffs’ arguments lack sufficient merit; administrative dismissal stands

Key Cases Cited

Frederick v. Smith, 416 N.J. Super. 594 (App. Div. 2010) (standard of review for R. 4:6-2(e) dismissal)
Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431 (2013) (pleading sufficiency: limited inquiry to facts on complaint and generous inferences)
Printing Mart–Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (test for adequacy of pleading: whether a cause of action is "suggested" by alleged facts)
LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62 (2009) (probable-cause factual disputes are for the jury)
Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375 (2000) (probable cause generally an absolute defense to § 1983 claims alleging malicious prosecution/false arrest)
Brunson v. Affinity Fed. Credit Union, 199 N.J. 381 (2009) (elements of malicious prosecution; malice and lack of probable cause)
Prime Accounting Dep't v. Twp. of Carney's Point, 212 N.J. 493 (2013) (liberal leave to amend; futility exception explained)
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (Supreme Court discussion of First Amendment retaliation claims in the context of arrest)
State v. Kaszubinski, 177 N.J. Super. 136 (Law Div. 1980) (recognition of public interest in confidentiality of police personnel/IA files)