FRANCIS X. RYAN v. WOODCLIFF LAKE BOROUGH, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0999-04T10999-04T1

FRANCIS X. RYAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WOODCLIFF LAKE BOROUGH,

ROBERT CAMPORA, JOHN T.

DOYLE, ALICE LEE,

BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF

TAXATION, PETER D. PIZZUTO,

and REALTY APPRAISAL CO.,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________________________________________

 

Argued December 21, 2005 - Decided July 26, 2006

Before Judges Wecker, Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey,

Docket No. 5825-03.

James O. Sullivan argued the cause for appellant.

David T. Pfund argued the cause for respondents

Woodcliff Lake Borough, Robert Campora, John T.

Doyle, and Alice Lee (Reiseman, Rosenberg &

Pfund, attorneys; Mr. Pfund, of counsel;

Mr. Pfund and David J. Bloch, on the brief).

Mark D. Madaio argued the cause for respondents

Woodcliff Lake Borough, Robert Campora, John T.

Doyle, and Alice Lee.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for

respondent Bergen County Board of Taxation

(Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General,

of counsel; Julian F. Gorelli, Deputy Attorney

General, on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for

respondent Peter D. Pizzuto (Michael Haas,

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joanne

Stipick, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Francis X. Ryan appeals from three separate orders dated April 30, 2004, dismissing his complaint as to each of the defendants. We affirm.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was treated unfairly by defendants because he had provided assistance to several of his neighbors in their efforts to challenge their property tax assessments. Plaintiff certified as follows:

I have been harassed and oppressed for over twenty years by the defendants simply because I assist other residents in having their property cards corrected to reflect an accurate picture of the tax value of each of their residences - something that I do without receiving any remuneration. All of the defendants are aware of this unacceptable and outrageous behavior of the public officials.

In his seven-count complaint, plaintiff asserted various claims against Woodcliff Lake Borough (the Borough); Robert Campona, the Tax Assessor of the Borough; John T. Doyle, the former Borough Administrator; Alice Lee, the former Tax Collector of the Borough; the Bergen County Tax Board; and Peter D. Pizzuto, a judge of the Tax Court (Judge Pizzuto). Plaintiff's complaint alleged: (1) "Errors on Property Card"; (2) "Fraudulent Misrepresentation"; (3) "Conversion and Willful Conversion"; (4) "Protection from Unfair Governmental Action"; (5) "Taxpayer Injured by Disregarded Tax Law, N.J.S.A. 54:51A-23"; (6) "Breach of Fiduciary Duty"; and (7) "Violation of the New Jersey Constitution."

The Tax Court found that Judge Pizzuto and the Bergen County Tax Board were entitled to immunity. See Delbridge v. Office of Pub. Defender, 238 N.J. Super. 288, 301 (Law Div. 1989) ("Those integrally related to the judicial process should not be subject to 'private prosecutions whenever the passions or resentments of disappointed suitors might dictate . . . .' To do so would interfere with 'their independence and destroy their authority.'") (quoting Little v. Moore, 4 N.J.L. 84, 86 (Sup. Ct. 1818)), aff'd o.b. sub nom. A.D. v. Franco, 297 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1993), certif. denied, 135 N.J. 467, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 832, 11 S. Ct. 108, 130 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1994).

As for the remaining defendants, the Tax Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint because plaintiff failed "to file a notice under the Tort Claims Act in the appropriate amount of time . . . ." See N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 & 59:8-8.

Although plaintiff has not provided us with a copy of an order denying his motion to amend his complaint to include a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983, the Tax Court, relying upon General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden, 143 N.J. 336 (1996), concluded that any such claim would fail. "[W]e believe that the remedies under New Jersey law are adequate to preclude section 1983 suits in either federal or state courts." Id. at 350.

On appeal, plaintiff initially presents the following arguments:

POINT I

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY AND ANY OTHER IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR TAKEN AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF BY THE DEFENDANTS ACTING IN CONCERT.

POINT II

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FALL OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE NEW JERSEY TORT CLAIMS ACT SINCE THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT. NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD TAKE REFUGE UNDER ITS PROVISIONS.

POINT III

THE BERGEN COUNTY TAX BOARD IS A "PERSON" UNDER 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983 AND MAY BE SUED.

POINT IV

PLAINTIFF'S SEC[.] 1983 CLAIM HAS MERIT SINCE THERE IS NO ADEQUATE STATE REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.

In his reply brief, plaintiff argues:

POINT I

THE MERITS OF THE SECTION 1983 ACTION CONTAINED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE TRIAL COURT; AND THUS, FORM A PROPER BASIS FOR THIS APPEAL.

POINT II

TORT ACT NOTICE PROVISIONS MUST BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY SINCE PLAINTIFF REASONABLY RELIED ON N.J.S.A. 59:3-14a WHEN FILING THIS ACTION.

POINT III

THE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT RUN SINCE THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED CONTINUING TORTIOUS CONDUCT.

POINT IV

WHETHER THE COUNTY TAX BOARD IS AN "ARM OF THE STATE" ENTITLED TO THE APPLICATION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS A QUESTION OF FACT WARRANTING DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS.

POINT V

THERE IS NO ADEQUATE STATE REMEDY IN THIS INSTANCE.

 
After reviewing the record and applicable law in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we perceive no basis to interfere with the orders entered by the Tax Court. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) & (E). We affirm the orders under appeal substantially for the reasons expressed by the Tax Court.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-0999-04T1

July 26, 2006