Title: of any opinion may not have been summarized). Lyudmila Blank v. City of Elizabeth, et als.

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). PER CURIAM This appeal concerns a claim asserted under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act and the plaintiff's failure to file a notice of claim against the City of Elizabeth within ninety days after accrual of her cause of action, as required by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Plaintiff, Lyudmila Blank, a non-English speaking, sixty-one year old Russian immigrant, sustained serious injuries on February 27, 1997, when she tripped over a pipe protruding from the sidewalk abutting residential premises owned by Michael and Betsy Fabricant. She retained counsel on April 1, 1997, after meeting with an attorney, who conducted an interview of Blank with the assistance of an interpreter. Following the initial meeting, Blank's attorney sent a notice of claim to the Fabricants, who turned it over to their insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company. Thereafter, on November 17, 1997 - almost nine months after the accident Allstate advised Blank's attorney that its investigation had disclosed that the offending pipe was a city water pipe that belonged to the City of Elizabeth. Less than a month later, counsel for Blank filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. In his certification in support of his motion, counsel asserted that it had been his understanding that the pipe was sticking through a sidewalk on the Fabricants' premises and had nothing to do with a public entity. Counsel asserted that his misunderstanding was based partly on his client's inability to speak English and on the use of a translator. Counsel further asserted that none of the information referred to in [Allstate's] investigation could have been concluded within the time provided by the requirements for 90 day notice under the Tort Claims Act. The Law Division granted Blank's motion for leave to file a late notice of claim. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Blank failed to demonstrate sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances that justified the grant of permission to file a late notice of claim. Nevertheless, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to the Law Division to permit Blank to make the requisite showing of extraordinary circumstances. The court based its determination to remand on its impression that even the inadequate record presented to the Law Division was strongly suggestive of the existence of an extraordinary circumstance. The panel's dissenting member agreed that the Law Division's disposition should be reversed, but concluded that a remand was inappropriate because in his view neither plaintiff's language barrier nor counsel's failure to investigate comprise 'extraordinary circumstances' under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. The appeal was before the Supreme Court as of right by virtue of the dissent. HELD: Because an inspection of the accident area within a reasonable time following the accident would have led promptly to the identification of the City of Elizabeth as the party responsible for the installation and maintenance of the pipe, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Law Division for a further presentation of evidence to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying a late notice of claim. 1. Counsel's description of the offending pipe suggests that an inspection of the area within a reasonable time following the accident would have led promptly to the identification of the public entity defendants that were responsible for the installation and maintenance of it. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Law Division for a further presentation of evidence to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying a late notice of claim. (p. 5) Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED and MODIFIED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, and LONG join in this opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO did not participate. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 88 September Term 1998 LYUDMILA BLANK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF ELIZABETH and CITY OF ELIZABETH WATER & SEWER UTILITY, Defendants-Appellants, and MICHAEL and BETSY FABRICANT, Defendants. Argued November 8, 1999-- Decided December 15, 1999 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 318 N.J. Super. 106 (1999). Robert F. Varady argued the cause for appellants (La Corte, Bundy & Varady, attorneys; Mr. Varady and Christopher J. Kinsella, on the briefs). Wm. Nicholas Chango, Jr., argued the cause for respondent (Frank P. Beninato, Jr., attorney; Mr. Beninato, on the brief). PER CURIAM This appeal as of right, R. 2:2-1(a), concerns a claim asserted under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3. Because plaintiff failed to present notice of her claim against the public entity defendants within ninety days after accrual of her cause of action, see N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, her counsel moved pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 for leave to file a late notice of claim. The Law Division granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances that justified the grant of permission to file a late notice of claim. Blank v. City of Elizabeth, 318 N.J. Super. 106, 110-11 (1999). Nevertheless, despite what it characterized as a perfunctory application and a record more notable for the information omitted than the information provided, id. at 109, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to the Law Division to permit plaintiff to make the requisite showing of extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 115. The court based its determination to remand on its impression that even the inadequate record presented to the Law Division was strongly suggestive of the existence of an extraordinary circumstance. Id. at 113. The panel's dissenting member agreed that the Law Division's disposition should be reversed, but concluded that a remand was inappropriate because in his view neither plaintiff's language barrier nor counsel's failure to investigate comprise 'extraordinary circumstances' under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. Id. at 120 (Kleiner, J., dissenting). NO. A-88 LYUDMILA BLANK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF ELIZABETH and CITY OF ELIZABETH WATER & SEWER UTILITY, Defendants-Appellants, and MICHAEL and BETSY FABRICANT, Defendants. DECIDED