BRANDON CAMACHO VS. RIAZ MOTANIÂ (L-5544-11, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5602-14T3

Background

In Jan. 2010, 17‑year‑old pedestrian Brandon Camacho was struck on an unlit section of Newtons Corner Road; no crosswalk at the location. Driver R.W. said he did not see Brandon until impact. Brandon suffered serious right‑side injuries.
HTPD Officer Riaz Motani led the investigation, reviewed SCART measurements, a bank surveillance video, the driver’s statements, and hospital injury reports. Motani concluded Brandon had been in the travel lane and issued a traffic summons (eventually amended and dismissed).
Sergeant Joseph Markulic, the supervising officer, reviewed and signed Motani’s report but did not personally view the surveillance video.
Plaintiffs (Brandon by guardian ad litem Ben Camacho, and Ben individually) sued Motani, Markulic, and Howell Township claiming malicious prosecution, abuse of process, supervisory liability, and CRA violations; defendants moved for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs also sought internal affairs (IA) personnel files for Motani and Markulic; the trial court denied broader IA discovery and plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the summary judgment dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel full IA records	Plaintiffs said IA files (including pre/post‑incident and more years) were necessary to test credibility and establish a pattern for municipal liability	Defendants said requested IA material was irrelevant, overbroad, and plaintiffs had not shown factual predicate under New Jersey law	No abuse of discretion; trial court correctly applied NJ law (Bayer standard) and plaintiffs failed to show files were likely to affect credibility or bore peculiar relevance
Whether plaintiffs stated an abuse‑of‑process claim	Plaintiffs asserted the traffic summons was maliciously issued and constituted abuse of process	Defendants said abuse of process applies to malicious civil filings, not traffic/ quasi‑criminal summons	Dismissed: claim unavailable because abuse of process targets malicious civil litigation, not a traffic summons
Whether plaintiffs proved malicious prosecution (malice and lack of probable cause)	Plaintiffs argued Motani lacked probable cause and acted with malice (e.g., heated call with Ben, alleged favoritism toward driver)	Defendants argued Motani had objectively reasonable grounds based on SCART measurements, surveillance video frame, driver statements, and injury pattern; no evidence of malice	Summary judgment for defendants: no triable issue of malice or lack of probable cause given the totality of circumstances supporting an honest belief Brandon violated the statute
Whether supervisor liability and CRA claims survive	Plaintiffs argued Markulic’s signoff without independent verification showed deliberate indifference; CRA claim mirrors malicious prosecution failure	Defendants said no reckless supervisory conduct and qualified immunity applies because no constitutional violation	Dismissed: no causal link shown (since probable cause existed), Schneider recklessness standard not met, and qualified immunity shields officers

Key Cases Cited

Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62 (elements of abuse of process and malicious prosecution)
Bayer v. Twp. of Union, 414 N.J. Super. 238 (standard for compelling police personnel records)
Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336 (supervisory liability standard: recklessness/deliberate indifference)
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (probable cause defined as reasonable ground for belief)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (probable cause viewed under totality of circumstances)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects officials unless clearly established violation)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (immunity from suit concept)