JOHN PALESKI v. JONNA C. CALI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1721-12T4

JOHN PALESKI,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

JONNA C. CALI,

Defendant-Respondent.

Argued December 4, 2013 Decided

February 4, 2014

Before Judges Fuentes, Simonelli and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-1418-10.

Lani M. Dagastino argued the cause for appellant (Seidman & Pincus, LLC, attorneys; Mitchell B. Seidman, Andrew J. Pincus and Phyllis Barker, on the briefs).

Lewis M. Markowitz argued the cause for respondent (Gutterman, Markowitz & Klinger, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Markowitz, of counsel and on the brief; Frank W. Farrell, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this matter, plaintiff John Paleski sought damages from his ex-wife, defendant Jonna C. Cali, for her alleged negligent supervision of their teenaged son. The trial judge granted

pursuanttoRule 4:37-2(b),anddeniedplaintiff'smotionfor

reconsideration.1 Thejudgefoundas amatterof lawthat plaintiff failed to present a cognizable claim against plaintiff. We agree and affirm.

Wederivethefollowingfactsfromtherecord. Plaintiff and defendantwere married in 1989, and divorcedin 1997. They havejointlegalcustodyoftheirtwosons,A.P.andD.P.,2with defendant having primary residential custody. In 2008, plaintiffgaveA.P.permissiontohave somefriendscometo his homeforacardgamewhilehewasaway;however,A.P.hada partyinstead. When plaintiffreturned, he discoveredthatsome jewelrywasmissing. He allegedlytolddefendantthathe thereafterwouldnotallowhissonsinhishomewhilehewas away.

Plaintiff claimedthat inthe fall of 2009, when D.P. was seventeen-yearsold,he told defendanthe was planninga trip to SouthAmericaanddidnotwanttheirsonsinhishomewhilehe

wasaway. PlaintiffleftonSeptember18,2009,leavingakey

1 Thejudgealsodismissedplaintiff'sbreachofcontractand trespass claimswith prejudice. Plaintiff doesnot appeal from those rulings.

2 Weuseinitialstoidentifytheparties'sonsinorderto protecttheir privacy.

to his homeforhis sons under a doormat, as he had done in the past. While he was away, D.P.defied defendant and went to plaintiff'shomeandhadaparty. Whenplaintiffreturnedon October4, 2009,he foundthataback windowhadbeen brokenand therewereemptybeerandchampagnebottles around hisproperty. Approximately two weeks later, plaintiffdiscoveredthatjewelry valued over$38,000 and$200 in cash were missing.

Plaintiff soughtto holddefendantresponsibleforthe2009 incidentunderanegligentsupervisiontheory. He asserted that defendanthadadutytosuperviseD.P.'sconductandbreached thatdutybyfailingto preventtheirsonfromenteringhishome duringhisabsenceandhavingaparty. Indismissingthat claim, thetrialjudgefoundthatasamatteroflaw,therewas no authority permittinganegligentsupervisioncauseof action betweenparentsofachild,andthatasamatterofpublic policy,the tortof negligent supervision of achild does not permit one parent to sue the other parent for damagesthe child caused. Onappeal,plaintiffcontendsthejudgeerredbecause

Mazzilliv.Selger,13N.J.296(1953)andMorellav.Machu,235

N.J.Super.604(App.Div.1989)expresslyrecognizeacauseof

action between parents for negligent supervision of a child. Plaintiff is incorrect.

ashotgun. Mazzilli,supra,13N.J.at298. Althoughstill

legallymarriedatthetimeoftheshooting,thechild'sparents were living in separate residences; the mother had legal and

residentialcustody. Id.at302. Inafact-sensitiveanalysis

that includedthemother's awareness of the shotgunin theroom the child shared with his eighteen-year-old half-brother, the weapon's accessibilitybythechild,includingammunition,a historyofthechildusingfirearms,andthemother'sroleas thechild'sexclusivecustodialparent,ourSupremeCourt held that themotherhadalegalduty to superviseherchildina mannerthatwouldnotexposetheplaintifftoanunreasonable

riskofharm. Id.at302-305. TheCourtstatedthat"theduty

rested upon [themother] to usereasonable carethat such lethal weapon would not be discharged except under competent supervisionorbycompetentandlegallyauthorizedpersons."

Id.at 304-05.

In Morella, teenagers had a drinking party in their

parents'homewhiletheparentswereaway. Morella,supra,235

N.J.Super. at 606-07. An intoxicated underage partygoer

injuredtheplaintiffwhiledrivingaftertheparty. Id.at

608. We held that the parents had a duty to the public to exercisereasonablecaretoarrangeforcompetentsupervisionof

their teenagers while they were away, and were subject to

damagesifthey breached that duty. Id.at611.

NeitherMazzillinorMorellaaddressed,orcreatedacause

of actionfor,negligent supervision between parents of a child. In contrast,thedoctrine ofparental immunityshieldsa parent from liabilityforthenegligent supervisionofachildin matters,suchasthoseexistingin here,involvingcustomary child-careissuesortheexerciseofparentalauthorityor

supervision. Foldiv.Jeffries,93N.J.533,551(1983);see

alsoBuonov.Scalia,179N.J.131,141(2004)(holdingthat

parentalimmunityapplies to mattersinvolvingtheexerciseof parentaldecision-making). Thus,thejudgewascorrectthatas amatterof lawthereisno authoritypermitting anegligent supervision cause of action between parents of achild, and that as amatterofpublicpolicy,thetortofnegligentsupervision of a child doesnot permitaparent to sue the other parent for damagesthechild caused.3

Affirmed.

3 Having reached this conclusion, we need not address plaintiff's contention that the judge usurped the jury's function in granting the motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule4:37-2(b).