ROBERT PTASZYNSKI et al. v. Ehiri Uwaneme

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4349-04T54349-04T5

ROBERT PTASZYNSKI and MARY

PTASZYNSKI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Ehiri Uwaneme,

Defendant,

Ehiri Pius & Patricia Uwaneme,

individually and o/b/o Allen

Ehiri and Karen Ehiri,

Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Robert Ptaszynski, Jeffrey Olah,

Frank Salsano, Joseph Kapinos,

Township of Woodbridge, and

Woodbridge Police Department,

Third-Party Defendants-Respondents

and

Prudential Insurance Company,

Third-Party Defendant.

 
Argued May 24, 2006 - Decided August 15, 2006

Before Judges Wefing, Wecker and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No.

MID-L-3034-00.

Eldridge Hawkins argued the cause for

third-party plaintiffs/appellants

Pius Ehiri and Patricia Uwaneme.

Edward J. Florio argued the cause for

third-party defendants/respondents Robert

Ptaszynski, Jeffrey Olah, Frank Salsano,

Joseph Kapinos, Township of Woodbridge and

Woodbridge Police Department (Florio & Kenny

attorneys for third-party defendant/respondent Joseph

Kapinos; Mr. Florio, of counsel and on the

joint brief; Anthony J. Marchese, on the

joint brief).

Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas,

attorneys for third-party defendant/respondent

Robert Ptaszynski (Christopher J. Killmurray,

of counsel and on the joint brief).

Eric M. Bernstein and Associates, attorneys

for third-party defendant/respondent Jeffrey Olah

(Philip G. George, of counsel and on the joint brief).

Lynch, Keefe, Bartels, Dvorak, Clark & Tice,

attorneys for third-party defendant/respondent

Frank Salsano (Lori A. Dvorak, of counsel and

on the joint brief).

Weiner Lesniak, attorneys for third-party defendants/respondents Township of Woodbridge and Woodbridge Police Department (Alan J. Baratz, of counsel and on the joint brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs Ehiri Pius & Patricia Uwaneme appeal from the order of the Law Division dismissing their cause of action against defendants the Woodbridge Police Department ("Police Department") and Robert Ptaszynski and Jeffrey Olah as individuals, and by virtue of their status as Woodbridge police officers. The two other officers, Frank Salsano, and Joseph Kapinos were exonerated by the jury in the previous trial. Despite this, they were permitted to join in this appeal without objection.

We described the facts and procedural history of this case in great detail in our previous opinion. Ptaszynski v. Uwaneme, supra, 371 N.J. Super. at 337-42. Thus, rather than repeat that at length here, we incorporate it by reference, and where appropriate, recite portions of it to elucidate our analysis.

The only issues under review here involve plaintiffs' "state law intentional tort claims against the individual police officers, for assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution," Id. at 343, and plaintiffs' LAD claims. Id. at 348. We remanded these issues after reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, and directed the court to consider their substantive merit.

Acting on our instructions, the trial court carefully considered the merits of plaintiffs' claims in the context of defendants' renewed application for summary judgment, and thereafter dismissed them as a matter of law based on the immunity provisions in the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, specifically N.J.S.A. 2C:25:22. Plaintiffs now seek appellate review of the trial court's rulings. After conducting our own careful review of the record, we affirm the court's judgment for reasons other than those expressed by the Law Division judge.

Plaintiffs' intentional tort claims are grounded on the conduct of Ptaszynski and Olah, two of the four Woodbridge officers who responded to the domestic violence complaint made by Patricia Uwaneme. We described plaintiffs' version of what occurred in our earlier opinion. Id. at 338-40. Only a fraction of the opinion was approved for publication. Id. at 348. The unpublished part of the opinion, however, dealt directly with the reasonableness of the responding officers' conduct.

After reviewing the applicable law, and considering the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we concluded that the conduct of the officers was objectively reasonable. Ptaszynski v. Uwaneme, No. A-5975-01T3 (App. Div. July 21, 2004) (slip op. at 28-29). We thus dismissed plaintiffs' 1983 claims. In this light, it seems clear to us that plaintiffs' intentional tort claims against Olah and Ptaszynski have been disposed of as a matter of law. Plaintiffs' remaining allegations of excessive force directed against officers Frank Salsano and Joseph Kapinos were disposed of by the jury's no cause verdict.

The last remaining issue concerns plaintiffs' LAD claim. As we noted in the published version of Ptaszynski v. Uwaneme:

[Plaintiffs] contend the police officers denied them equal treatment on the basis of their race, both in their home and while in the Township police station. They claim they were beaten and verbally abused because of their race. Because the judge found that a police department was not a place of public accommodation, he dismissed plaintiffs' LAD claims.

[Ptaszynski, supra, 371 N.J. Super. at 344.]

In reversing the trial court's legal determination that a police department was not a place of public accommodation, we specifically expressed no opinion of the merits of plaintiffs' claims. After conducting our own careful review of the record, we conclude that these claims were also properly dismissed, albeit for reasons other than those expressed by the Law Division.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ptaszynski and Olah used racial epithets while carrying out their arrest and in subsequent interactions while at the police station. Both officers hotly disputed these allegations. Accepting plaintiffs' contentions as true for purposes of our analysis, we discern no legal basis to proceed under N.J.S.A. 10:5-4. While we obviously do not condone the use by police officers of any discriminatory or offensive language, the utterance of these statements alone does not establish a cognizable claim under the LAD.

Affirmed.

 

As noted in Ptaszynski v. Uwaneme, 371 N.J. Super. 333, 333 n.1 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 182 N.J. 147 (2004), defendant's name is Pius Ehiri, not Ehiri Uwaneme or Ehiri Pius. As we did in our previous opinion, we will refer to Pius Ehiri and Patricia Uwaneme here as plaintiffs and the remaining parties as defendants, even though Ehiri and Uwaneme are in fact third-party plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 claims were previously dismissed.

Plaintiffs were free to file civilian complaints against these officers with the internal affairs unit of either the Woodbridge Police Department or the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office. The record does not reflect whether these plaintiffs filed such complaints.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4349-04T5

 

August 15, 2006