MANCINI v. TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, 354 N.J. Super. 282 (2002)

806 A.2d 842

DIANE MANCINI, Plaintiff-Respondent/ Cross-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, TEANECK POLICE DEPARTMENT, DONALD GIANNONE, individually and in

Page 283

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.[1]

A-2186-00T5Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.Argued: February 6, 2002
Decided: October 2, 2002

[1] Fictitiously-named defendants have been eliminated from the caption. 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).

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).

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

Page 284

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.