Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0513-13T4
06-10-2015
ALAN C. NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCEAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Respondent.
Alan C. Newman, appellant pro se. Berry, Sahradnik, Kotzas & Benson, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Mary Jane Lidaka, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and Rothstadt. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-403-13. Alan C. Newman, appellant pro se. Berry, Sahradnik, Kotzas & Benson, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Mary Jane Lidaka, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Alan C. Newman appeals from the Law Division's order granting defendant, Ocean County Department of Corrections, summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint concluding it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. At the time plaintiff filed his complaint, he was incarcerated in the Ocean County Jail. Plaintiff alleged he fell and injured himself on September 21, 2010, because of defendant's negligence. Plaintiff filed an initial notice of claim with defendant on December 20, 2010. Thereafter, he received forms from defendant, which he completed and returned on January 31, 2011. Plaintiff then filed his complaint on February 5, 2013. In lieu of an answer, defendant moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. This appeal followed.
Defendant Ocean County was improperly pleaded as Ocean County Department of Corrections.
On appeal, plaintiff argues because he timely "complied with the Notice of Tort Claims Act, [(N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 to - 11)]." and defendant never responded to his submission, his complaint should not have been dismissed. Defendant does not dispute the notice was properly filed, but argues the court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint because it was filed after the statutory limitations period. Pursuant to the statute, N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, defendant had until September 21, 2012, to file his complaint.
We reviewed the record and considered the applicable legal principles. We affirm, finding plaintiff's argument to be without sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Suffice it to say, there is no dispute plaintiff's complaint was filed after the two-year period provided by statute. See N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 ("[I]n no event may any suit against a public entity . . . arising under this act be filed later than two years from the time of the accrual of the claim."). This bar applies regardless of whether a notice of claim was timely filed. Anaya v. Twp. of Vernon, 139 N.J. Super. 409, 412 (App. Div.)("It is plain that the notice provisions of the act, including those relating to when an action may be commenced after notice of a claim is filed, do not affect the statute of limitations provisions applicable to the claim asserted -- here, two years from the date of the accident and resulting injury." (citing N.J.S.A. 59:8-1; 59:8-8b; 59:8-9. See also N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2)), certif. denied, 71 N.J. 494 (1976). "The Tort Claims Act specifically bar[red] the institution of this action." Ibid.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION