SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1376-17T4

F.K.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTEGRITY HOUSE, INC.,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

Submitted October 16, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Hoffman. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-2239-16.

Marc L. Winograd, attorney for appellant.

Law Office of Daniel J. McCarey, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent (Daniel J. McCarey, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from the Law Division order granting the summary 

judgment dismissal of his bodily injury claim against defendant Integrity House, 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 26, 2018
2

A-1376-17T4

Inc., a residential drug treatment facility in Newark, based upon the Charitable 

Immunity Act1(the Act). Because the motion judge failed to provide the 

findings and reasoning supporting her decision, see R. 1:7-4(a), we vacate the 

dismissal order and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff sustained a fractured ankle when he slipped and fell on a wet 

interior staircase at defendant's facility, where plaintiff was a client and resident. 

The judge's dismissal order states that defendant "is entitled to charitable 

immunity . . . from [suit] pursuant to the [Act]"; however, the judge did not issue 

a written or oral opinion.

According to plaintiff's forensic accounting expert, 2015 revenue for 

Integrity House totaled $20,094,046; of that amount, $252,855 came from 

fundraising events and $157,310 came from contributions. 

We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment under the standard 

of Rule 4:46-2, which warrants summary judgment if the court finds that there 

are no genuinely disputed issues of fact. Davis v. Devereux Found., 209 N.J. 

269, 286 (2012) (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 

(1995)). The court must consider whether the competent evidential materials 

presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in

 

1

 N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7.
3

A-1376-17T4

consideration of the applicable evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a 

rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the nonmoving party. Brill, 142 N.J. at 540. Review of an order granting summary 

judgment is de novo; the appellate court need not accept the trial court's findings 

of law. Aronberg v. Tolbert, 207 N.J. 587, 597 (2011) (citations omitted).

Charitable immunity is an affirmative defense that generally must be 

pleaded and proved by the party relying on the defense. R. 4:5-4; Rendine v. 

Pantzer, 276 N.J. Super. 398, 436 (App. Div. 1994) (citation omitted). The 

burden of persuasion is by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Rendine, 

276 N.J. Super. at 435. Here, defendant bears the burden since it seeks to invoke 

the affirmative defense of charitable immunity. Abdallah v. Occupational Ctr. 

of Hudson Cnty., Inc., 351 N.J. Super. 280, 288 (App. Div. 2002) (citations 

omitted).

Defendant seeks the protection of the Act based on its status as an entity 

organized exclusively for charitable purposes. In these situations, "an 

organization claiming immunity under the Act must demonstrate some [thing 

more than a nominal] level of support from charitable donations and/or trust 

funds as it is those sources of income the Act seeks to protect." Bieker v. Cmty. 

House of Moorestown, 169 N.J. 167, 178 (2001) (citation omitted). Plaintiff 
4

A-1376-17T4

argues that "application of the [Act] is unwarranted" because the amount 

defendant raised from fundraising events and charitable contributions (2.03 

percent of total revenues) was not significant enough to be considered more than 

nominal. In Abdallah, we concluded that private charitable contribution levels 

of 1.5 percent and 0.10 percent in succeeding years were "too insignificant to 

have any effect on the charitable-status determination." 351 N.J. Super. at 288.

Rule 1:7-4(a) clearly states that a trial "court shall, by an opinion or 

memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its 

conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a written order that 

is appealable as of right." See Shulas v. Estabrook, 385 N.J. Super. 91, 96 (App. 

Div. 2006) (requiring an adequate explanation of basis for court's action). 

"Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth the reasons 

for his or her opinion." Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 310 (App. Div. 

2008) (quoting Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990)). The 

failure to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law "constitutes a 

disservice to the litigants, the attorneys, and the appellate court." Curtis v. 

Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (quoting Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adj. 

Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1976)).
5

A-1376-17T4

Here, the motion judge provided no findings or reasons for her conclusion 

that charitable immunity applies in this case. The judge's failure to comply with 

Rule 1:7-4(a) necessitates that we vacate the dismissal order and remand for 

further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.