Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3029-10T4
11-04-2011
PHILIPPE GUSTAVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWARK, Defendant-Respondent.
Philippe Gustave, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Emilia Perez, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent (Anna Perreira, Corporation Counsel, Newark Department of Law, attorney; Ms. Perez, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Axelrad and Ostrer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-7770-06.
Philippe Gustave, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Emilia Perez, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent (Anna Perreira, Corporation Counsel, Newark Department of Law, attorney; Ms. Perez, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff pro se appeals from a trial court order entered February 4, 2011, denying a motion for reconsideration of the court's January 7, 2011 order, which denied his request for a damages judgment against the City of Newark on a claim of false arrest that occurred on September 9, 2004.
Plaintiff first filed a complaint against defendant regarding the incident on September 18, 2006, after filing a notice of claim dated December 2, 2004. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds on February 2, 2007, after rejecting for lack of evidence plaintiff's argument that his lack of a sane mind should have tolled the limitations period. See N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. We affirmed in an unpublished opinion, Gustave v. City of Newark, No. A-3669-06 (App. Div. Feb. 20, 2008), and the Supreme Court denied certification. Gustave v. City of Newark, 196 N.J. 600 (2008).
Plaintiff filed his motion for entry of judgment in his favor returnable January 7, 2011. The trial court denied that motion and the subsequent motion to reconsider, explaining in a short statement of reasons that plaintiff had failed to suggest a procedural or substantive basis for the relief sought. Plaintiff appeals and argues that his original complaint was filed within two years of his claim. He also presents medical evidence dated years after the complaint was dismissed.
We affirm. Plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following comments for plaintiff's information. The 2007 dismissal of plaintiff's September 18, 2006 complaint was with prejudice and is final. Plaintiff may not seek relief based on the complaint. Plaintiff also apparently misunderstands the statute of limitations, which required him to file his complaint within two years of when his claim accrued, not when he filed his notice of claim with the city, or even later, when the charges against him were dismissed. See N.J.S.A. 59:8-1, -8(b); Bayer v. Twp. of Union, 414 N.J. Super. 238, 258 (App. Div. 2010) (false arrest claim accrues on date of arrest).
Affirmed.