File No. 15108-0002-JBD 

PARKER McCAY P.A. 

9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300 

P.O. Box 5054 

Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054 

(856) 596-8900

Attorneys for Defendant(s), City of Trenton, Detective Pedro Perez, Police Officer Miguel A. Acosta, 

Police Officer Daryl D. Berry, Detective Noel Santiago, Detective Tara Stefano, Sergeant Kolodziej and 

Detective S. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MELVIN RIVERA, EDISON SOTO, 

EDNA RIVERA, CARLOS RIVERA, 

MELISSA CORTES AND MCF (a minor) 

and MCM (a minor), TANYA ACEVEDO 

and TAM ( a minor), GRICEL RIVERA 

and GRM (a minor), and DENISE 

BERRIOS and DBF (a minor), 

 Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

CITY OF TRENTON, DETECTIVE 

PEDRO PEREZ, POLICE OFFICE 

MIGUEL A. ACOSTA, POLICE OFFICE 

DARYL D. BERRY, DETECTIVE NOEL 

SANTIAGO, DETECTIVE TARA 

STEFANO, SERGEANT KOLOLDZIEJ, 

DETECTIVE S. JOHNSON, IRVING 

BRADLEY, JR., DOUGLAS H. 

PALMER, and John Doe, a POLICE 

OFFICER for the CITY OF TRENTON, 

 Defendant(s). 

HONORABLE PETER G. SHERIDAN 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-cv-02559–PGS-LHG 

ANSWER, JURY DEMAND, DESIGNATION 

OF TRIAL COUNSEL 

 

Defendants, Detective Pedro Perez, Police Officer Miguel A. Acosta, Police Officer 

Daryl D. Berry, Detective Noel Santiago, Detective Tara Stefano, Sergeant Kolodziej and 

Detective S. Johnson, by way of answer to the Complaint filed herein, say that: 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 61
2

NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION

1. The allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint state a legal 

conclusion, and, therefore, no response is required. 

2. The allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint state a legal 

conclusion, and, therefore, no response is required. 

3. The allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint state a legal 

conclusion, and, therefore, no response is required. 

4. The allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint state a legal 

conclusion, and, therefore, no response is required. 

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF

5. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

6. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

7. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 62
3

8. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

9. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

10. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

11. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

12. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

13. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

14. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 63
4

15. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

16. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

17. Answering defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs to their 

proofs. 

DEFENDANTS

18. It is admitted that the City of Trenton is a political subdivision of the State 

of New Jersey; the remaining allegations of this paragraph of the Complaint are denied. 

19. It is admitted that Detective Pedro Perez was at all times relevant to this 

lawsuit a police detective with the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph of this Complaint are denied. 

20. It is admitted that Officer Acosta was at all times relevant to this lawsuit a 

police officer with the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations of this paragraph of 

this Complaint are denied. 

21. It is admitted that Officer Berry was at all times relevant to this lawsuit a 

police officer with the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations contained in this 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 64
5

paragraph of the Complaint are denied. 

22. It is admitted that Detective Noel Santiago was at all times relevant to this 

lawsuit a detective with the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations contained in 

this paragraph of the Complaint are denied. 

23. It is admitted that Detective Stefano was at all times relevant to this 

lawsuit a detective with the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations contained in 

this paragraph of the Complaint are denied. 

24. It is admitted that Sergeant Kolodziej was at all times relevant to this 

lawsuit a police officer with the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations contained 

in this paragraph of the Complaint are denied. 

25. It is admitted that Detective Johnson was at all times relevant to this 

lawsuit a detective with the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations contained in 

this paragraph of the Complaint are denied. 

26. It is admitted that Irving Bradley, Jr. was at all times relevant to this 

lawsuit the Director of the Trenton Police Department; the remaining allegations contained in 

this paragraph of this Complaint are denied. 

27. It is admitted that Douglas H. Palmer was at all time relevant to this 

lawsuit the Mayor of the City of Trenton; the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph 

of this Complaint are denied. 

FACTS

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 65
6

28. Denied. 

29. Defendants do not have sufficient information from which to admit or 

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs 

to their proofs. 

30. Defendants do not have sufficient information from which to admit or 

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs 

to their proofs. 

31. Denied. 

32. Denied. 

33. Denied. 

34. Denied. 

35. Denied. 

36. Denied. 

37. Denied. 

38. Denied. 

39. Denied. 

40. Denied. 

41. Denied. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 66
7

42. Denied. 

43. Denied. 

44. Denied. 

45. Denied. 

46. Denied. 

47. Denied. 

48. Denied. 

49. Denied. 

50. Denied. 

51. Denied. 

52. Denied. 

53. Denied. 

54. Denied. 

55. Denied. 

56. Denied. 

57. Denied. 

58. Denied. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 67
8

59. Denied. 

60. Denied. 

61. Denied. 

62. Denied. 

63. Denied. 

64. Defendants do not have sufficient information from which to admit or 

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs 

to their proofs. 

65. Denied. 

66. Denied. 

67. Denied. 

68. Denied. 

69. Denied. 

70. Denied. 

71. Denied. 

72. Denied. 

73. Defendants do not have sufficient information from which to admit or 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 68
9

deny the allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint, and, therefore, leave plaintiffs 

to their proofs. 

74. Denied. 

75. Denied. 

76. Denied. 

77. Denied. 

78. Denied. 

79. Denied. 

COUNT ONE

79. Answering defendants repeat and reassert the responses to the preceding 

paragraphs as set forth herein. 

80. Denied. 

81. Denied. 

82. Denied. 

83. Denied. 

84. Denied. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 69
10

COUNT TWO

85. Answering defendants repeat and reassert the responses to the preceding 

paragraphs as set forth herein. 

86. Denied. 

COUNT THREE

87. Answering defendants repeat and reassert the responses to the preceding 

paragraphs as set forth herein. 

88. Denied. 

89. Denied. 

90. Denied. 

91. Denied. 

COUNT FOUR

92. Answering defendants repeat and reassert the responses to the preceding 

paragraphs as set forth herein. 

93. Denied. 

94. Denied. 

95. Denied. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 70
11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 A – E. Denied. 

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

 Please take notice the J. Brooks DiDonato, Esquire is herewith designated 

as trial counsel. 

 These answering defendants demand a trial by jury 

FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

against answering defendants. 

SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE

The Complaint is barred by the provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims 

Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1, et seq. 

THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants breached no duty owed to the plaintiffs. 

FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants were free from any breach of duty owed to the plaintiffs.

FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Any injury or damages sustained by the plaintiffs were caused through the sole 

fault, negligence, carelessness or recklessness of the plaintiffs herein. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 71
12

SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Any injuries or damages sustained by the plaintiffs were caused through the sole 

negligence of a third party or parties over whom answering defendants exercise no control. 

SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Any liability which might otherwise be imposed upon defendants must be reduced 

by the application of the standard of comparative negligence mandated by N.J.S.A. 59:9-4. 

EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants are immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of 

N.J.S.A. 59:2-1. 

NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants are not liable to the plaintiffs in that there is no liability 

upon any public entity pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(b). 

TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Any action or failure to act on part of the answering defendants is in the nature of 

a discretionary activity within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:2-3, and, as such, no liability may be 

imposed upon defendants. 

ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

This claim is barred by the provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(b) to the extent that it 

charges legislative and administrative action or inaction. 

TWELFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants are immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of 

N.J.S.A. 59:3-2. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 72
13

THIRTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs failed to file a Notice of Claim within the time required by N.J.S.A.

59:8-8 or to move, within one year from the accrual of the cause of action, for an Order 

permitting the filing of a late Notice of Claim, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. 

FOURTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

The claims that plaintiffs may be barred pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.

59:9-2(d) in that they have not suffered the requisite medical expense nor permanent loss of a 

bodily function or permanent disfigurement or dismemberment required under that subsection of 

the statute. 

FIFTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Any recovery to which plaintiffs might otherwise be entitled is subject to 

reduction in accordance with the limitation of damages provided in N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. 

SIXTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

The negligence of plaintiffs is greater than that of the negligence, if any, by 

defendants, and they are, therefore barred from recovery pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.

59:9-4. 

SEVENTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Negligence, if any, on the part of the answering defendants is not the proximate 

cause of any damages or injuries which may have been sustained by the plaintiffs. 

EIGHTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants liability and duty of contribution as a joint tortfeasor, 

jointly and severally liable with any other tortfeasors of the plaintiff extends only to the damages 

provided pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:9-3. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 73
14

NINETEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims as set forth in the Complaint should be dismissed by this Court 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

TWENTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed because at all times relevant to the 

allegations contained therein answering defendants acted properly within the scope of their 

duties and responsibilities. 

TWENTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants herein at all times acted in accordance with and pursuant to 

the Constitutions of both the United States of America and the State of New Jersey. 

TWENTY-SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants are accorded absolute and qualified immunity for the acts 

alleged. 

TWENTY-THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to 

know, that any actions taken by them with respect to plaintiffs were in violation of plaintiffs’ 

rights, and, accordingly, answering defendants are immune from the imposition of monetary 

damages. 

TWENTY-FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

This action is subject to the limitations of N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(c), which bars 

judgments against public entities for punitive or exemplary damages. 

TWENTY-FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 74
15

Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and, therefore, are 

barred from any recovery against answering defendants in this Court. 

TWENTY-SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have not been deprived of any rights guaranteed under the Constitutions 

and/or laws of the United States of America or the State of New Jersey as the result of any 

alleged act or omission by the answering defendants. 

TWENTY-SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants plead the defense of municipal immunity. 

TWENTY-EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

At all time relevant to the events alleged in plaintiffs’ Complaint, answering 

defendants acted in good faith and appropriately under the law. 

TWENTY-NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims lack merit, are frivolous in nature and should be stricken, and, as 

such, answering defendants are entitled to damages under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the New Jersey State Rules of Civil Procedure and the New Jersey Frivolous Lawsuit Act. 

THIRTIETH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs claims are time barred as the applicable Statute of Limitations have 

already run. 

THIRTY-FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

Answering defendants reserve the right to interpose such other separate and/or 

affirmative defenses as continuing investigation and discovery may disclose. 

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Please take notice that J. Brooks DiDonato is herewith designated as trial counsel. 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 75
16

JURY DEMAND

This answering defendant demands a trial by jury. 

BY:_ S/J. BROOKS DIDONATO_____________ 

J. BROOKS DIDONATO 

Attorney for Defendant(s), City of Trenton, Detective 

Pedro Perez, Police Officer Miguel A. Acosta, Police 

Officer Daryl D. Berry, Detective Noel Santiago, 

Detective Tara Stefano, Sergeant Kolodziej and 

Detective S. Johnson

Dated: October 6, 2011 

Case 3:11-cv-02559-PGS-LHG Document 12 Filed 10/06/11 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 76