Court Opinion

ID: 9753132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:59:37.769943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:30.677654
License: Public Domain

Bueling, J.
(dissenting). I am in accord with the philosophy expressed by Mr. Justice Jacobs in his concurring opinion with respect to the existence of the plaintiff’s substantive right of action for malicious prosecution.
The complaint in the present case was attacked by motion before an answer was filed. The complaint alleged that the charge made against the plaintiff by the defendant in the disciplinary proceedings was “false and without reasonable or probable cause.” Summary judgment on the merits was not sought by the defendant. There were no affidavits filed relating to the alleged falsity of the charges made by the defendant herein on the disciplinary proceedings taken in respect to the plaintiff herein. See R. R. 4:58-3. The sole issue determined on the motion was a question of law, whether the complaint stated a claim on which relief could be granted.
The defendant’s motion also attacked the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint concerning the alleged falsity of the charges levied at the plaintiff herein in the disciplinary proceedings. It seems to me the allegations of falsity should be amplified. Cf. R. R. 4:8-1; 4:8-5; 4:9-1; 4:12-5.
For the reasons expressed in this dissenting opinion I would reverse the judgment of the Superior Court, Law Di*294vision, and remand the matter to the Superior Court, Law Division, for reinstatement of the complaint and for further proceedings in accordance with the pertinent Rules of practice and procedure and applicable substantive law.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Heher, Oliphant, Jacobs and Brennan — 5.
For reversal — Justices Wachenfeld and Burling — 2.