Court Opinion

ID: 9692896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:11:07.343902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:37.893609
License: Public Domain

*154CLIFFORD, J.,
dissenting.
The Court makes for the plaintiffs a much better case of “sufficient reasons” for late filing than they do themselves. Here is the full and complete explanation given by plaintiffs, as set forth in their attorney’s affidavit:
Plaintiffs were unable to comply with the notice of claims requirement within the ninety (90) day period because of the severity of their injuries and inability to investigate the circumstances surrounding the complained of occurrence.
Nothing there about any problem of identifying the culprits. Nor can I find in the affidavit much else that the Court has mined from that barren source. I therefore agree with the Appellate Division, substantially for the reasons stated in its opinion, 219 N.J.Super. 446 (1987), that the trial court’s discretion was mistakenly exercised, wherefore I vote to affirm.
For reversal — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 6.
For affirmance — Justice CLIFFORD — 1.