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Division order granting the summary judgment dismissal of his bodily injury claim against defendant Integrity House, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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, 20182 A

- 1376

- 17T4

Inc., a residential drug treatment facility in Newark , based upon the Charitable Immunity Act 1 (the Act)

. B ecause the motion judge fai led to provide the findings and reasoning supporting her decision , see R. 1:7

- 4(a), w e vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings.
P laintiff 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, t he judge did not issue a written or oral opinion. According to plaintiff's forens ic accounting expert, 2015 revenue for Integrity House tota led $20,094,046; of that amount, $252,855 came from fundraising events and $1 57, 310 came from contributions. We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment under the st andard 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)). T he 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 a lleged disputed issue in favor of the non

moving 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, 43 6 (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 bear s the burden since it seek s to invoke the affirmative defense of charitable immunit y. 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 mu st 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 , 17 8 (2001) (citation omitted)

. Pl aintiff4 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 Abdal lah , 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. Straha n , 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 c ourt." 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.
V acate d and remand ed. We do not retain jurisdiction.