Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3309-11T2
03-28-2013
OLIVIA ARMOUR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Respondent.
Olivia Armour, appellant pro se. Preston & Wilkins, PLLC, attorneys for respondent (Gregory R. Preston and Lauren G. Bernard, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fasciale and Maven.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-3511-10.
Olivia Armour, appellant pro se.
Preston & Wilkins, PLLC, attorneys for respondent (Gregory R. Preston and Lauren G. Bernard, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a January 20, 2012 order granting summary judgment to defendant Newark Housing Authority (NHA) and dismissing her case with prejudice. We affirm.
On April 29, 2010, plaintiff filed her complaint, named NHA as a defendant, and asserted claims for wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress, appropriation, defamation, fraud, and conspiracy. In December 2011, NHA filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it is entitled to judgment because (1) plaintiff failed to comply with the notice provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3; and (2) her claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, -2, and -3.
In January 2012, Judge Thomas R. Vena conducted oral argument, rendered an extensive oral opinion, and granted summary judgment to NHA. The judge first determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact and then he analyzed plaintiff's causes of action alleged in her complaint. The judge agreed with NHA that plaintiff failed to comply with the Act and was also barred by the applicable limitations periods. This appeal followed.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge erred by dismissing her complaint and granting summary judgment to the NHA.
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard under Rule 4:46-2(c) that governs the trial court. Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 558, 564 (2012). We must "consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
We have carefully reviewed plaintiff's contentions and the controlling legal principles and affirm substantially for the reasons that the judge expressed in his oral opinion dated January 20, 2012.
In March 2013, we received NHA's motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 2:9-9. This motion is now moot because we affirmed the order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION