LOUIS WATLEY v. DR. CHRISTINE BAKER

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2531-05T52531-05T5

LOUIS WATLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DR. CHRISTINE BAKER,

Defendant-Respondent.

 

Submitted August 16, 2006 - Decided August 21, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Winkelstein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, L-7529-04.

Louis Watley, appellant pro se.

Reiseman, Rosenberg & Pfund, attorneys for respondent (Sam Rosenberg, of counsel; Jayne E. Turner, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following a jury trial in October 2000, plaintiff Louis Watley was convicted of sexual assault and is currently serving an eighteen-year prison term at East Jersey State Prison in Rahway. In this case, plaintiff appeals from the Law Division's summary judgment dismissing his complaint for damages against Dr. Christine Baker, a psychologist, who testified at Watley's criminal trial on behalf of the State. On appeal, plaintiff raises the following issues:

POINT 1

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIEF TO DEFENDANT WHERE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE HEARING WAS CONDUCTED IN AN UNFAIR AND PREJUDICIAL MANNER.

POINT 2

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIEF TO DEFENDANT WHERE IT WAS CLEAR THAT PURSUANT TO STATU[T]E [N.J.S.A.] 2A:53A-27, AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS FRAUD.

POINT 3

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIEF TO DEFENDANT WHERE IT WAS CLEAR THAT AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT CANNOT BE USED AS A PREREQUISITE FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION AGAINST A PSYCHOLOGIST WHO MISREPRESENTED FACTS IN A REPORT. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; 5; 8; 14, U.S.C.A. 42 1983; N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.

POINT 4

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIEF TO DEFENDANT WHERE IT WAS CLEAR THAT PURSUANT TO STATU[T]E [N.J.S.A.] 2A:53A-27, AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE WILLFUL OR WANTON MISCONDUCT IS THE CAUSE OF ACTION.

We have carefully reviewed the record and have considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the applicable law. We conclude that his arguments are without merit and do not warrant discussion in a full written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following.

In his complaint and amended complaint, plaintiff appears to claim that Dr. Baker committed fraud when she testified on October 3, 2000. The challenged testimony, however, was presented to the court during an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing; it was not offered to the jury. Thus, plaintiff's claim that his conviction was based on Dr. Baker's testimony testimony that the jury never heard is incredulous.

What is more, aside from plaintiff's unsupported allegations, no facts of record support his claims of fraud against Dr. Baker. Consequently, the Law Division's determination that plaintiff was required to provide an affidavit of merit pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 was correct.

Affirmed.

 

Neither the transcript of the jury verdict nor Watley's judgment of conviction has been provided in the appendix on appeal.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2531-05T5

 

August 21, 2006