SHAKA TAYLOR v. CITY OF NEWARK
Annotate this Case(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0578-08T20578-08T2
SHAKA TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEWARK, A Municipal
Corporation of the State of
New Jersey and CORY BOOKER,
Mayor of Newark,
Defendants-Respondents.
_______________________________________________
Submitted June 2, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Skillman and Collester.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No.
L-4171-08.
J. Clifton Wilkerson, attorney for appellant.
Julien X. Neals, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondents (Diego F. Navas, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff is a former municipal court judge in the City of Newark. On or about October 2, 2006, based on a resolution of the Newark's City Council rescinding his appointment to a new term, plaintiff received a letter from defendant Mayor Cory Booker's Chief of Staff, Pablo Fonseca, terminating his services as a municipal court judge, effective October 31, 2006.
More than a year-and-a-half later, on May 14, 2008, plaintiff brought this action challenging his termination. The complaint claimed that plaintiff had been validly appointed to a new three-year term as a municipal court judge and that defendants lacked authority to terminate him. Plaintiff sought back pay and other monetary relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it had not been filed within the forty-five day period allowed by Rule 4:69-6 for the filing of an action in lieu of prerogative writs. For the reasons set forth in a letter opinion dated August 20, 2008, Judge Costello granted defendants' motion.
Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his complaint. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Costello's letter opinion.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-0578-08T2
June 17, 2009
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.