J.D. VS. D.R., HIGHTSTOWN HIGH SCHOOLÂ (L-0796-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-0035-16T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff alleges sexual abuse by his high-school teacher between 1983 and 1987 and seeks to sue public-school-related defendants under the Tort Claims Act.
- Plaintiff experienced panic attacks and psychiatric treatment beginning June 2013; diagnoses evolved to include panic disorder and PTSD by December 2015.
- Psychotherapy notes show plaintiff "learned of the [teacher's] responsibility" and "felt the anger" as of May 14, 2015; by December 14, 2015, he acknowledged the relationship impaired his life.
- Under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, notice of claim must be filed within 90 days of accrual; N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 allows court leave to file late notice within one year upon a showing of "extraordinary circumstances."
- Plaintiff filed for leave to file a late notice in April 2016 (well past 90 days from May 14, 2015 and December 14, 2015); the trial court denied the motion and later denied reconsideration.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing his psychiatric impairments constituted extraordinary circumstances, the court erred regarding affidavits, and a Lopez hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff showed "extraordinary circumstances" to excuse missing the 90-day notice deadline under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 | Psychiatric impairments and delayed recognition of abuse justified late filing | Plaintiff had sufficiently recognized the connection between abuse and symptoms by May 14, 2015 (or at latest Dec. 14, 2015); no extraordinary circumstances shown | Denied — plaintiff failed to meet the demanding "extraordinary circumstances" standard; filing in April 2016 was untimely |
| Whether the trial court erred by requiring (or faulting plaintiff for not submitting) an affidavit supporting the motion | Court improperly considered absence of plaintiff affidavit | Motion must be supported by affidavits showing sufficient reasons, per statute | Rejected — no abuse of discretion; record (therapist notes, expert) established dates undermining plaintiff's claim of late discovery |
| Whether a Lopez hearing was required to resolve accrual/discovery date | Lopez hearing needed because plaintiff's discovery date was in dispute | No dispute over accrual date; plaintiff repeatedly asserted May 14, 2015 | Rejected — Lopez hearing not required where accrual/discovery date is undisputed |
| Standard of review for denial of leave to file late notice | N/A (issue about appellate review) | N/A | Appellate standard is abuse of discretion; no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463 (discusses abuse-of-discretion review for late-notice motions)
- Lamb v. Glob. Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134 (standards for appellate review of discretionary rulings)
- Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (establishes requirement for hearing when discovery date is in dispute)
- Lowe v. Zarghami, 158 N.J. 606 (explains Legislature tightened the standard for late-notice excuses)
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (addresses limitations on late-notice relief)
- Henry v. Dep't of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320 (clarifies when a Lopez hearing is required)