DIANE MANCINI v. TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, et al.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL
 
OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
A-2186-00T5

DIANE MANCINI,

Plaintiff-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, TEANECK
POLICE DEPARTMENT, DONALD
GIANNONE, individually and in
his capacity as Chief of the
Teaneck Police Department, and
WARREN WHITE, individually and in
his capacity as Captain of the
Teaneck Police Department,

Defendants-Appellants/
Cross-Respondents.See footnote 11
___________________________________

 
Argued: February 6, 2002 - Decided: April 2, 2002
Remanded by the Supreme Court - September 5, 2002
Resubmitted September 23, 2002 - Decided: October 2, 2002
 
Before Judges Baime, Newman and Axelrad.
Resubmitted before Judges Newman and Axelrad.
 
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, L-5491- 96.
 
Barry Asen argued the cause for appellants/cross-respondents (Epstein, Becker & Green, attorneys; Mr. Asen, of counsel and on the brief).
 
Harold J. Ruvoldt, Jr., argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant (Edwards & Angell, attorneys; Cathy Fleming and Mr. Ruvoldt, Jr., of counsel; Mr. Ruvoldt, Jr. and Ms. Fleming, on the brief).
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by
 
AXELRAD, J.T.C. (temporarily assigned).
 
As directed by the Supreme Court in its summary remand order of September 5, 2002, we have reviewed our decision, reported at 349 N.J. Super. 527 (2002), in light of the Court's decision in Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Center, 174 N.J. 1 (2002).
The principles enunciated by this court in Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Center, 336 N.J. Super. 395 (App. Div. 2001), upon which we relied in holding the "continuing violation doctrine" tolled the running of the statute of limitations on plaintiff's LAD claim, were affirmed by the Court in Shepherd, supra, 174 N.J. at 7.
Accordingly, we are satisfied our application of those principles is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
We reaffirm the judgment of the trial court, except as modified in our prior decision.

Footnote: 1 1Fictitiously-named defendants have been eliminated from the caption.