Court Opinion

ID: 9862756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:05:09.207828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:48.169315
License: Public Domain

*157Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In respect of plaintiff Elliot Stomel’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Camden and its City Council, I concur with both the reasoning and result set forth in parts I and II of the majority’s opinion.
However, to the extent the majority, in part III of the majority’s opinion, resurrects plaintiffs claims against the City and City Council pursuant to the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissent in D’Annunzio v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 192 N.J. 110, 127-37, 927 A.2d 113, 123-29 (2007), also decided today.
For reversal in Part II — Chief Justice ZAZZALI and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS — 7.
For affirmance in Part III — Chief Justice ZAZZALI and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE and HOENS — 6.
For reversal in Part III — Justices RIVERA-SOTO — 1.