SUZANNE VENEZIA VS. UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, Â(L-1786-12, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2281-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 11, 2017Background
- Suzanne Venezia (plaintiff, pro se) sued multiple public entities and individuals after her August 30, 2009 arrest at a family member's Brielle residence; claims included violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA) and related torts.
- Relevant defendants here: Borough of Brielle, Brielle Police Department, Officers Todd Gerlach and Gary Olsen ("Brielle defendants").
- Facts in the record: family members reported plaintiff was told not to return to the Brielle residence, an earlier police response documented that restriction, and on August 30 plaintiff allegedly pushed family members and was arrested for simple assault and defiant trespass.
- Charges were later dismissed at municipal court after complainants declined to testify; plaintiff remained overnight in county jail after she could not post bail.
- Plaintiff sought additional discovery (including financial records and materials she argued would pierce the self-critical analysis privilege); the trial court limited discovery and denied reconsideration of that ruling.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Brielle defendants, concluding officers were entitled to qualified immunity and the municipality/department bore no Monell-based liability; plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers are immune from CRA suit (qualified immunity re: arrest) | Venezia: officers acted without probable cause, with malice; material facts disputed; jury should decide. | Officers: had probable cause and acted objectively reasonably; qualified immunity bars personal liability. | Court: Granted summary judgment — officers entitled to qualified immunity; facts show objectively reasonable conduct. |
| Whether plaintiff raised genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment | Venezia: her opposition and statements create triable issues (disputes about police reports, sequence of events). | Defendants: plaintiff failed to comply with R. 4:46-2(b) and produced no admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute. | Court: No genuine disputed material fact demonstrated in record; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by limiting discovery | Venezia: denial of discovery improperly prevented development of facts and circumvented her case. | Defendants: requested discovery was unnecessary or privileged; court properly exercised discretion. | Court: No abuse of discretion; discovery rulings affirmed. |
| Whether municipality/department can be held liable under Monell for officers' conduct | Venezia: municipal liability possible based on policies/customs that led to violation. | Defendants: no evidence of policy/custom causing constitutional violation. | Court: Borough and police department entitled to summary judgment; no Monell liability shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22 (N.J. 2014) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary judgment evidentiary standard)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (qualified immunity analysis re: arrest/warrant context)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (objective qualified immunity standard)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (N.J. 1995) (de novo review for legal issues on summary judgment)
- Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (N.J. 2008) (CRA purpose and relation to TCA)
- Thigpen v. City of East Orange, 408 N.J. Super. 331 (App. Div. 2009) (TCA inapplicability to CRA claims)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability for constitutional violations)
- Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375 (N.J. 2000) (discussion of Malley/Harlow standards in New Jersey context)