Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0742-14T4
05-03-2016
ARTHUR B. DENNIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEGAN M. STETTLER, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESSICA R. SHAW, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Arthur B. Dennis, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Donna M. Hawley argued the cause for respondent Megan M. Stettler (Cooper Maren Nitsberg & Voss, attorneys; Ms. Hawley, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Rothstadt. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Atlantic County, Docket No. DC-7067-13. Arthur B. Dennis, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Donna M. Hawley argued the cause for respondent Megan M. Stettler (Cooper Maren Nitsberg & Voss, attorneys; Ms. Hawley, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Arthur B. Dennis appeals from the Law Division's August 26, 2014 order dismissing his complaint for damages with prejudice. According to the order, the court dismissed the complaint because plaintiff "failed to comply with the [c]ourt['s earlier] orders compelling him to appear and provide sworn testimony at [a] deposition." In support of his appeal, plaintiff argues that he attended a deposition in accordance with the court's earlier order. Defendant Megan M. Stettler concedes that plaintiff attended the required deposition. She contends, however, that the dismissal was proper for reasons other than that expressed by the court in its order. Specifically, she argues that the court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint for his failure to serve a certificate of permanency, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) in accordance with another provision of the same earlier order. As a result, defendant contends that the trial court "got it right for the wrong reasons" and should be affirmed, citing to Isko v. Planning Bd. of Livingston, 51 N.J. 162, 175 (1968)("[i]t is a commonplace of appellate review that if the order of the lower tribunal is valid, the fact that it was predicated upon an incorrect basis will not stand in the way of its affirmance").
We conclude from our review of the record that the Law Division erroneously entered the order of dismissal and that defendant's argument for affirmance is without merit. Suffice it to say, the Law Division never made any findings from which we could glean whether a dismissal was appropriate based upon plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with its earlier order as to the certificate of permanency.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION