Unpublished Opinions for the Week of January 23, 2017

01-2-2263 In the Matter of New Jersey Racing Comm’n. Approving Application of New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Assoc. Inc. for a Pilot Program License at Jamie’s Cigar Bar and Rest., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (2 pp.) Appellants ACRA Turf Club LLC and Freehold Raceway Off Track, LLC appealed from a final determination and order issued by the New Jersey Racing Commission. The order granted respondent New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association Inc. a pilot program license to establish an electronic wagering terminal at a cigar bar in Clifton. N.J.S.A. 5:5-186 authorized the pilot program. Prior to oral argument on the appeal, the Commission’s attorney advised the court that the license had expired on June 18, 2016. Accordingly, we the appeal was dismissed as moot.

36-2-2243 Crimmins v. City of Hoboken, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that defendants conspired against plaintiffs to destroy their business reputations and relationships with defendants and others. Defendants successfully moved for summary judgment based on defenses provided by the Tort Claims Act and plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in finding that the statute of limitations was not tolled by the discovery rule, in finding that plaintiff George Crimmins lacked standing, in finding that defendants were entitled to public entity immunity, and in finding that plaintiffs failed to meet the elements of their tortious interference, constitutional, and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination claims. The court rejected plaintiffs’ appellate arguments, noting that plaintiff Government Solutions, LLC never served notice of tort claim, and ruling that Crimmins’ notice could not have been construed as giving notice of GS’s tort claims. In any event, the court ruled that not only was Crimmins’ notice untimely, but plaintiffs’ claims were also time-barred, rejecting plaintiffs’ contentions that they did not know or have reason to know of their claims until nearly two years after the claims accrued. Accordingly, because plaintiffs’ other arguments did not warrant discussion, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants.