03-2-7989 Porto Pavino, LLC v. Giuliano, S.R.L., App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Defendant appealed an unfavorable judgment resulting from its former counsel’s failure to appear for nonbinding arbitration. Because the trial judge abused his discretion by requiring defendant to bear the brunt of counsel’s apparent confusion or neglect and failed to view with liberality defendant’s application to excuse the failure to appear at arbitration, the appellate panel reversed and remanded for restoration of the matter to the active trial calendar. Nonbinding arbitration in this case was scheduled to occur on March 27, 2014. Defense counsel failed to appear and, after waiting a few hours, the arbitration proceeded in defendant’s absence; plaintiff was awarded $41,376.08. Defendant promptly moved for relief, claiming former counsel was robbed of her wallet in Manhattan the night before and, without a driver’s license or credit cards, was unable to travel from Manhattan the next morning. Although he found implausible the circumstances urged by the attorney, the judge expressed a willingness to reconsider if counsel provided a police report memorializing the alleged incident. Defendant provided a police report and moved for reconsideration. The judge nonetheless found inconsistencies between the report and defense counsel’s version of what occurred and denied defendant’s motion. The appellate panel found that the circumstances here constituted good cause within the meaning of Rule 4:21A-4(f). Entry of a judgment against defendant, resulting from former counsel’s failure to attend the nonbinding arbitration, was disproportionate to the minor inconvenience suffered by plaintiff. Final judgment by default constituted an abuse of discretion.
46-2-8015 Geronimo v. Slattery, App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Plaintiff, a college student living with her father attempted to burn her initials into her leather jacket with a lighter. She set fire to her father’s building, and was subsequently charged with third-degree criminal mischief, third-degree arson, and third-degree aggravated assault. She pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a disorderly persons offense. Plaintiff filed this action asserting claims for false arrest and false imprisonment under 42 U.S.C.A. §1983 based on defendants’ violation of Rule 3:3-1(c), violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, false imprisonment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the arresting officers, Doran and Donahue, Lieutenant Frank Sprague of the Jersey City Police Department, Detective Allan Slattery, who investigated the matter, Maria Pagan, Administrator of the Jersey City Municipal Court, and Robert Kakoleski, Acting Director of the JCPD. The action was removed to the federal district court where the §1983 claims were dismissed and the matter was remanded. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was then granted. On plaintiff’s appeal, the panel affirmed. It found that even if it was assumed that Rule 3:3-1 required the issuance of a summons rather than an arrest warrant for the charge of criminal mischief and that the police erred in failing to follow the rule’s requirement, plaintiff did not suffer a violation of her civil rights as the wrongful issuance of a complaint-warrant, without more, does not constitute a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
