Postorino contends on appeal that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Passaic County had constructive notice of the pothole that caused his accident.
#Michael posterino trial
We review issues of law de novo and accord no deference to the trial judge's legal conclusions. "If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must then decide whether the trial court correctly interpreted the law." DepoLink Court Reporting & Litig. Thus, we consider, as the motion judge did, "'whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.'" Id.
We review a ruling on a motion for summary judgment de novo, "'apply the same standard governing the trial court.'" Davis v. We are guided by well-established principles. Judge Maron further noted that "he photographs presented by the show that the pothole was not so large that it should have been obvious to that it needed repair." Judge Maron granted summary judgment "based upon lack of actual or constructive notice as required by the Tort Claims Act." The issue of permanent and substantial injury was therefore moot. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Postorino, Judge Maron reasoned that since county employees regularly traversed the road where the pothole existed, there was no evidence that the pothole existed for a sufficient period of time as to allow the condition to be discovered. The judge found that the pothole was a dangerous condition.
Postorino opposed the motion, contending that the pothole was a dangerous condition, and genuine issues of material fact existed as to notice of the pothole and permanency of his injury.Īfter hearing oral argument on September 19, 2014, Judge Lawrence Maron issued an order granting summary judgment with his written findings of fact and conclusions of law. 59:4-4 and (3) he had a permanent loss of a bodily function, N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 (2) the county had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, N.J.S.A. The county argued that Postorino failed to prove that: (1) the pothole was a dangerous condition, N.J.S.A. However, Nigro could not locate any documentation indicating that the area of 324 Grand Street was inspected by his department after the work was completed.įollowing discovery, Passaic County moved for summary judgment based upon immunities under the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. According to Nigro, normally after that type of work was completed, someone from Buildings and Roads would inspect the site to make sure the road was not damaged and was in a safe condition.
#Michael posterino install
The record also reveals that in late November, 2009, a permit was issued to the Passaic Valley Water Commission to change out a hydrant or install a new pipe in the vicinity of the pothole. The complaint to make repairs was issued the next day following Postorino's early-morning accident. On November 17, the day before the accident, a report was prepared by a county road inspector requesting that potholes be filled-in on Grand Street between Spruce Street and Railroad Avenue without specifying exact locations. When shown pictures of the pothole taken after the accident, Nigro acknowledged that if the pothole was seen by a crew member or supervisor, he would have expected the pothole to have been reported or filled-in. As a result, he sustained a left knee injury and subsequently filed suit against Passaic County, which was responsible for maintaining the street.ĭuring discovery, Jack Nigro, the county's Superintendent of Buildings and Roads, gave deposition testimony estimating that his department's work crews traveled the road on a weekly basis where the accident occurred. on February 18, 2011, Postorino, Fire Chief for the City of Paterson, was leaving the scene of a fire when he stepped into a pothole covered by water in the vicinity of 324 Grand Street.
We view facts from the record below in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the non-moving party. Having considered the parties' arguments in light of the record and applicable legal standards, we affirm. Plaintiff Michael Postorino appeals from the Law Division's Septemorder granting summary judgment to defendant County of Passaic, dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Pascrell III, Passaic County Counsel, attorney Jeffrey P. Glovin, Deputy Passaic County Counsel, argued the cause for respondent (William J. Rubenstein, argued the cause for appellant (James P. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No.
0 kommentar(er)
