ANTHONY CASTRONOVA VS. COUNTY OF BERGENÂ (L-1821-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0933-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 12, 2017|
Check Treatment NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0933-15T3
ANTHONY CASTRONOVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF BERGEN,
Defendant,
and
BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE (BCPO); STATE OF
NEW JERSEY; and BERGEN
COUNTY PROSECUTOR
JOHN MOLINELLI,
Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________
Argued May 9, 2017 – Decided June 12, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket
No. L-1821-15.
Eric V. Kleiner argued the cause for
appellant.
Ashley Gagnon, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondents (Christopher S.
Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Lisa A.
Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Ms. Gagnon, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Anthony Castronova appeals from an August 7, 2015
order dismissing his complaint against former Bergen County
Prosecutor John Molinelli, the Prosecutor's Office, Bergen County,
and the State of New Jersey.1 He also appeals from an October 9,
2015 order denying his motion for reconsideration and recusal of
the motion judge, and from an October 14, 2015 order denying as
moot his motion seeking to change venue from Bergen County.
Plaintiff likewise appeals from a December 5, 2014 order granting
a change of venue from Passaic County to Bergen County, and a
December 19, 2014 order denying reconsideration.
1
Both sides presented the motion judge with materials outside the
pleadings. However, the judge's decision rested on the pleadings
rather than on those additional materials. See R. 4:6-2(e) (if
the court considers materials outside the pleadings, the motion
is converted into one for summary judgment). Nonetheless,
plaintiff has included those additional materials in his appendix.
We have reviewed them to determine whether, even with those
supplemental materials, we could glean a viable cause of action
here. See Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116
N.J. 739, 746 (1989). None of those materials would make a
difference to the outcome of this case. We note that plaintiff's
brief makes reference to additional factual allegations, which
were not set forth in his complaint and are not supported by the
record presented to us.
2 A-0933-15T3
Plaintiff resigned his position as a Haworth police officer,
under suspicion of involvement in organized crime. His letter of
resignation stated that he resigned "in exchange for an agreement
that I not be prosecuted for allegations of malfeasance in office
and other related charges." The letter also acknowledged that,
upon request, his former employer would provide a copy of the
letter to any prospective law enforcement employer and "shall be
immune from civil suit for so doing."
In his complaint, plaintiff asserted that Prosecutor
Molinelli thereafter attempted to persuade other law enforcement
agencies to refrain from hiring plaintiff, based on plaintiff's
resignation from the Haworth police department on suspicion of
criminal involvement. Plaintiff alleged that, as part of that
effort, Molinelli asked officials of one of those police
departments to listen to wiretap tapes from an organized crime
investigation. Notably, the complaint does not allege that the
information about plaintiff's resignation was false or that the
wiretap tapes contained false information about him.
Plaintiff's complaint also recited that the Bergen County
Prosecutor's Office indicted him for false swearing in connection
with his application to two other police departments. The
Prosecutor accused plaintiff of failing to disclose that he had
resigned from the Haworth police department to avoid criminal
3 A-0933-15T3
prosecution. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the prosecutions
were ill-motivated and unjustified, and interfered with his
ability to obtain another law enforcement job.
Plaintiff asserted causes of action for tortious interference
with economic advantage and related theories, invasion of privacy,
abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress for
the allegedly unwarranted criminal prosecutions, intentional or
negligent misrepresentation, violation of constitutional rights,
and claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-
2.
In a comprehensive written opinion dated August 7, 2015,
Judge Robert C. Wilson concluded that, even taking plaintiff's
assertions as true and viewing the complaint indulgently, the
complaint failed to state a claim. Among other things, he reasoned
that Molinelli was entitled to prosecutorial immunity, and that
plaintiff had no constitutionally-protected property interest in
prospective employment as a law enforcement officer.
Our review of the judge's order entered under Rule 4:6-2(e)
is de novo. See Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1, 26 (2016) (citing Smerling v. Harrah's Entm't, Inc.,389 N.J. Super. 181
, 186 (App.
Div. 2006)). Having reviewed the record in light of that standard,
we affirm the August 7, 2015 order for the reasons stated in Judge
Wilson's August 7 opinion. We affirm the October 9, 2015 order
4 A-0933-15T3
denying reconsideration, for the reasons stated in the judge's
written opinion issued with the order.
Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the orders relating
to the change of venue from Passaic County to Bergen County, for
the reasons stated by Assignment Judge Ernest M. Caposela in his
written opinion dated January 9, 2015. See Rossbach v. Evening
News Publ'g Co., 3 N.J. Super. 143, 145 (App. Div. 1949). We
likewise affirm Assignment Judge Bonnie J. Mizdol's order
dismissing, on mootness grounds, plaintiff's motion to change
venue from Bergen County after his complaint was dismissed.
Plaintiff's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit
to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
5 A-0933-15T3