Rogers v. Cape May County Office
208 N.J. 414
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Rogers’ criminal conviction was reversed in 2007 and remanded for a new trial; indictment dismissed with prejudice in July 2008.
- Rogers filed a notice of tort claim against his trial counsel in November 2008; the claim concerns alleged negligence in his criminal representation.
- The question centers on whether exoneration occurred at the 2007 remand or at the 2008 dismissal, affecting accrual and timeliness under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and 59:8-9.
- Appellate Division held accrual at the 2007 reversal (exoneration), which would bar the claim as time-barred; the Supreme Court reverses this analysis.
- Court aligns with McKnight’s rule that exoneration occurs only when the defendant is finally exonerated, not merely when remanded for trial.
- Court ultimately holds exoneration occurred on July 25, 2008, when the indictment was dismissed with prejudice, and the timely filing issue requires consideration of extraordinary circumstances for late filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does accrual occur for a criminal legal-malpractice claim? | Rogers: accrual at October 23, 2007 (PCR reversal). | Defendants: accrual at October 23, 2007; timely filing required. | Accrual occurs July 25, 2008 (dismissal with prejudice). |
| Does McKnight mandate exoneration only upon final disposition rather than PCR relief? | McKnight allows accrual upon relief like PCR if final disposition favorable. | PCR relief is not exoneration; accrual should be when exoneration occurs. | Yes; exoneration requires final disposition, not interim PCR relief. |
| Is Rogers' late notice under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 potentially excused by extraordinary circumstances? | Late filing within a year after accrual could be excused; extraordinary circumstances apply. | Late notice must be within one year of accrual and be justified by extraordinary circumstances; here issues exist. | Remanded to determine extraordinary circumstances and whether relief should be granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKnight v. Office of the Public Defender, 197 N.J. 180 (N.J. 2008) (exoneration controls accrual in criminal legal-malpractice actions; PCR not exoneration)
- Grunwald v. Bronkesh, 131 N.J. 483 (N.J. 1993) (discovery rule postpones accrual in legal-malpractice actions)
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (N.J. 2000) (extraordinary circumstances concept in accrual litigation)
- Lowe v. Zarghami, 158 N.J. 606 (N.J. 1999) (defines extraordinary circumstances standard for late notice)
- Pilonero v. Twp. of Old Bridge, 236 N.J. Super. 529 (App.Div. 1989) (early guidance on late notice requirements under Tort Claims Act)
- Zois v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 286 N.J. Super. 670 (App.Div. 1996) (illustrates non-extraordinary reasons for late filing not excused)