SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2959-18

DONELL L. PRINCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

and PRISCILLA PAJELA,

Defendant-Respondents.

_________________________

Submitted December 14, 2020 – Decided February 12, 2021

Before Judges Sabatino and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-1679-17.

Donell L. Prince, appellant pro se.

Keenan & Doris, LLC, attorneys for respondent City of 

Englewood (Timothy O'Connor, on the brief). 

Victoria M. Brown, attorney for respondent Priscilla 

Pajela. 

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-2959-18

Plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment orders dismissing his claims 

against defendants. Plaintiff alleged he slipped on snow and fell on the same 

day while walking on a street in Englewood and on the property owned by 

defendant Priscilla Pajela, his landlord. We affirm.

Claims against Englewood

On the day of these events in March 2015, as plaintiff left the rooming 

house where he lived, he noticed there was snow on the common walkways of 

the rooming house property and the adjoining public sidewalks. Because snow 

had been plowed from the street onto the sidewalks, plaintiff decided to walk in

the street. While doing so, plaintiff stated he fell and landed on his backside 

and side of his body. He got up, continued on to a store to do his shopping, and 

walked back to the rooming house. As plaintiff was on the rooming house 

property, he said his foot "caught on something[] and [he] fell backward on [his] 

back" and struck his head. 

Plaintiff alleged that Englewood, through its agents and employees, was 

negligent in failing to remove the snow from public sidewalks and streets, and 

the negligence caused him to fall and sustain injuries. Giving plaintiff all 

legitimate inferences as we must, Rule 4:46-2(c), we are satisfied the trial court 
3

A-2959-18

did not err in its grant of summary judgment to Englewood. Brill v. Guardian 

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).

It is well-established law in this state that public entities have absolute 

immunity for all snow removal activities. Miehl v. Darpino, 53 N.J. 49, 54

(1968). The common law "immunity was based primarily on the limitless 

liability that could be imposed on an entity, such as a state, county, municipality, 

or turnpike authority, that had the responsibility to clean up numerous streets 

and roads." Bligen v. Jersey City Hous. Auth., 131 N.J. 124, 131 (1993); see

also Rochinsky v. State, Dep't of Transp., 110 N.J. 399, 414-15 (1988) (holding 

that the enactment of the Tort Claims Act did not abrogate common law snow 

removal immunity); Lathers v. Twp. of West Windsor, 308 N.J. Super. 301, 305-

06 (App. Div. 1998) (holding that the municipality had immunity from suit 

where the plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of ice on publicly owned 

sidewalk); Rossi v. Borough of Haddonfield, 297 N.J. Super. 494, 499-500

(App. Div. 1997) (holding the borough enjoyed snow removal immunity where 

the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in a municipal parking lot). 

Here, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Englewood. 

Plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell on a public street because of snow 

conditions. Because Englewood enjoys immunity from liability for its snow 
4

A-2959-18

removal activities, it cannot be held liable for plaintiff's alleged injuries. See

Rochinsky, 110 N.J. at 413-14.

Claims against Pajela

Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that Pajela and her employees were 

negligent in removing snow and ice from the rooming house property and their

negligence caused him to slip and fall and suffer injuries. 

Plaintiff has an extensive medical history. He was involved in motor 

vehicle accidents in 1991 and 1995 following which he complained of pain in

his neck and back. He treated with a neurologist and a neurosurgeon who 

prescribed pain medication. He also underwent MRI testing of his neck and 

back. Plaintiff has received Social Security Disability Insurance since 1997 

because of his back injuries. At the time of his fall in March 2015, plaintiff was 

under the care of a pain management doctor and was taking Percocet to manage 

his chronic pain. 

During his deposition, plaintiff stated: "I never said that my injuries were 

completely healed or anything like that. I would never say that." 

Plaintiff first sought treatment for the injuries he sustained in the March 

2015 fall three weeks after the accident, returning to the pain management 

doctor and neurologist. However, he never produced an expert report to provide 
5

A-2959-18

an analysis of his pre-existing injuries and conditions and any injuries that may 

have been caused by his fall. Nor did he present any evidence to differentiate 

between the two falls. There was no medical expert to present the jury with an 

opinion as to whether any of plaintiff's current complaints were causally related 

to the fall on Pajela's property. 

A plaintiff has the burden to prove the elements of a negligence claim "by 

some competent proof." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 51 (2015) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). This includes the element of proximate cause. 

Plaintiff must prove any injuries he sustained were proximately caused by the 

fall on the rooming house property.

Because of plaintiff's complicated medical history and his ongoing 

treatment at the time of his fall, he required expert opinion to prove proximate 

cause. The medical issues presented here are beyond the ken of an average juror. 

2175 Lemoine Ave. Corp. v. Finco, Inc., 272 N.J. Super. 478, 490 (App. Div. 

1994) (holding that expert testimony is necessary where proximate causation 

cannot be established through common knowledge). Plaintiff had preexisting 

injuries and an earlier fall on the same day. Therefore, he was required to obtain 
6

A-2959-18

an expert to opine whether the fall at the rooming house caused a new injury.

1

Without an expert report, plaintiff could not sustain his personal injury claims 

pertaining to the fall. 

Plaintiff made additional allegations against Pajela in her capacity as a 

rooming house operator. He alleged that Pajela and other unknown parties 

harassed and intimidated plaintiff in an attempt to force him out of the rooming 

house. Plaintiff alleged that he complained to Pajela in 2013 about drug use by 

other tenants and cracked heating pipes which caused black mold in the rooming 

house bathroom. After plaintiff reported his grievances to the Department of 

Community Affairs in 2013, an inspector evaluated the property and found it

was in full compliance with the law. 

Plaintiff contended, that after the inspection, Pajela retaliated against 

plaintiff by drilling holes into the walls and windows of his room to "blow[]

drugs . . . [and] other chemical toxins into plaintiff[']s room[.]" Plaintiff alleged

Pajela and her agents and employees failed to comply with the Rooming and 

Boarding Houses Act of 1979, N.J.S.A. 55:13B-1 to -21, and Regulations 

Governing Rooming and Boarding Houses, N.J.A.C. 5:27-1.1 to -14.1. In 

1 Plaintiff advised the trial court during oral argument that he was not pleading 

an aggravation of any prior injury or condition.
7

A-2959-18

addition, he contended that Pajela and her employees intentionally harmed him

"by way of drugs" and "other chemical irritants," depriving him of a safe living 

environment. Plaintiff did not produce any expert opinion relating his alleged 

injuries to Pajela's conduct.

In granting Pajela summary judgment, the trial court stated: 

The court find[s] no genuine issue of material fact. 

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 

(1995). To the extent plaintiff argues that his personal 

injury claims related to drug use by other boarders at 

his residence caused him illness and injury, were not 

dismissed by prior order of the court, the court finds 

there is no evidence, to include an expert report, 

medical or otherwise, which would relate the alleged 

injuries to the actions complained of nor how defendant 

was liable therefore. 

The balance of [the] allegations concerning harassment 

in 2013 are barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. Plaintiff's 

amended complaint was filed in 2018. Allegations 

regarding incidents alleged to have occurred in 2013 or 

prior were adjudicated by the Bureau of Rooming and 

Boarding House Standards, which found [the boarding 

house] to be in full compliance with the Rooming and 

Boarding House Act and the Regulations governing 

Rooming and Boarding Houses. 

Plaintiff continues to reside at the boarding house. 

Again, in viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the 

non-movant, we are satisfied he has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material 

fact to withstand summary judgment. R. 4:46-2. Plaintiff's complaints of 
8

A-2959-18

violations of the Rooming House Act in 2013 were investigated and dismissed 

by the regulating agency. Moreover, as discussed above, without an expert 

opinion to connect his allegations of misconduct by Pajela or the other boarders 

to an alleged injury or illness, plaintiff cannot support his claims.

In light of our de novo determination that the trial court's grant of 

summary judgment to defendants and the dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims 

was supported by the record, we need not address plaintiff's remaining 

contentions regarding the denial of other motions and cross-motions. 

Affirmed.