SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 1162

- 18T1

SALVATORE J. MORETTI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BOROUGH OF PARAMUS,

Defendant

- Respondent.

__________________________

Argued telephonically March 23, 2020

– Decided J ul y 15, 2020

Before Judges Rothstadt and Moynihan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. DC

- 105530

- 18.

Salvatore J. Moretti, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

R. Scott Fahrney argued the cause for respondent (Kaufman, Semeraro & Leibman, LLP attorneys; R. Scot t Fahrney, on the brief).

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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

- 1162

- 18T1

Plaintiff Salvatore J. Moretti appeals from the Law Division's order

granting, without prejudice, defendant Borough of Paramus's motion to dismiss

his complaint. Plaintiff's complaint alleged a shade tree fell on and damaged his
car in the amount of $6000. Plaintiff claimed the alleged damages prevented

him from working and defendant negligently caused his damages. The motion

judge granted defendant's Rule 4:6

- 2 motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim upon wh ich relief can be granted after concluding there was no proof that

plaintiff complied with the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1

- 1 to 12

- 3 , or
if he did, that the complaint was timely. 1

On appeal, plaintiff argues:

POINT I

THE BOROUGH OF PARAMUS C ANNOT RELY UPON THE NEW JERSEY TORT CLAIMS ACT 90 DAY NOTICE PROVISION, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

POINT II

THE BOROUGH OF PARAMUS CREATED THE SHADE TREE COMMISSION, AUTHORIZING THE

1 Plaintiff's complaint alleged the cause of action accrued on May 16, 2018. Pursuant to the 90

- day notice requirement, N.J.S.A. 59:8

- 8, plaintiff should have filed a notice of tort claim by August 14, 2018. Plaintiff should have then waited six months fro m the date that notice of the claim wa s received to file suit. Ibid

. Expiration of the six months occurred on February 14, 2019. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 6, 2018.3 A

- 1162

- 18T1 AUTHORITY TO LEVY FINES, AND THUS [FINANCIAL] RESP ONSIBILITY IS A BOROUGH DUTY.

POINT III

THE TORT CLAIMS ACT NOTICE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE AT BAR, SINCE THE NETWORK OF NUMEROUS INTERRELATED LEGAL ACTIONS SHOW AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION OF MORETTI'S REAL ESTATE.

We are unpersuaded by the se contentions. Applying our " plenary standard

of review from a trial court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Rule 4:6

- 2(e) ," under which we " owe no deference to the trial court's

conclusions ," Rezem Family Assoc s

. , LP v. Borough of Mill stone , 423 N.J.

Super. 103, 114 (App. Div. 2011), we affirm substantially for th e reasons
expressed by the motion judge. We add only the following brief comments.

When reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule

4:6

- 2(e)
, the test to determine the adequacy of the pleading is whether the facts

as presented in the complaint suggest a cause of action. S ee Printing Mart

Morristown v. Sharp Elecs

. Corp.
, 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989) ; Velantzas v.
Colgate

- Palmolive Co.
, 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988)

. Plaintiff's complaint did not

suggest, as he argues, a constitutional issue of inverse condemnation, barring

application of the TCA 's notice requir e ments

.4 A

- 1162

- 18T1

An inverse condemnation involves the taking of real property by the

government, see Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon , 202 N.J. 390 , 406 (2010) , not

damage to a car. The TCA, therefore, applied. See Greenway Dev. Co. v.

Borough of Paramus , 163 N.J. 546, 557 ( 2000 ) (holding that the TCA does not

apply to inverse condemnation claims).

Fin ally, to the extent plaintiff argues that the TCA did not apply because

the municipal shade tree commission caused the damage to his car, h e did not

join that entity and his claim is barred by N.J.S.A. 40:64

- 14 . The statute

provides:

Nothing in this chap ter contained shall be construed to

make any shade tree commission

. . . responsible for

. . . an injury to any property or highway tree or shrub. Liability for any such

. . . injury shall be governed by [N.J.S.A. 59:4

- 10] and any other relevant provisions of the [TCA]

.

See also Petrocelli v. Sayreville Shade Tree Com m 'n , 297 N.J. Super. 544, 547

- 48 (App. Div. 1997 ) (declining to consider whether immunity under N.J.S.A.

40:64

- 1 4 extends to the entity which established the s hade t ree c ommission).

To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of plaintiff's

remaining arguments, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:1 1

- 3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.