JUDITH G. RAMOS-LOPEZ VS. LUIS A. VARGAS (L-3853-17, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3530-17T2
JUDITH G. RAMOS-LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LUIS A. VARGAS; STATE OF
NEW JERSEY; and STATE OF
NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendants,
and
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
COUNTY OF PASSAIC,
Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted February 5, 2019 – Decided February 14, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Geiger.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-3853-17.
Garces Grabler & LeBrocq, PC, attorneys for appellant
(Jean-Claude Labady, of counsel and on the brief).
William J. Pascrell, III, Passaic County Counsel,
attorney for respondent (Nadege D. Allwaters,
Assistant County Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In D.D. v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 213 N.J.
130, 157-58 (2013), the Court held that attorney inattention or negligence does
not constitute an extraordinary circumstance, as defined by N.J.S.A. 59:8-9,
sufficient to excuse noncompliance with the ninety-day deadline for the service
of a tort-claim notice imposed by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Last month, in again
considering the consequence of attorney inattention or negligence in this general
setting, the Court continued to adhere to D.D., but found an exception applicable
only in "the limited circumstances" of the "rare case" before it. O'Donnell v.
N.J. Tpk. Auth., __ N.J. __ (Jan. 14, 2019) (slip op. at 3, 22).1 Because the
matter at hand clearly falls within D.D.'s holding that attorney negligence is not
an extraordinary circumstance justifying a late notice of claim, and because
1
In O'Donnell, the attorney served a notice of claim within ninety days but on
the wrong public entity. Another claimant, however, served a timely notice on
the correct public entity, a circumstance that the Court found sufficient to excuse
the other attorney's negligence and allow the action to proceed. Id. at 22.
A-3530-17T2
2
plaintiff has not presented a compelling circumstance similar to O'Donnell, we
affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.
The record reveals that, on January 19, 2017, a motor vehicle driven in
Paterson by plaintiff Judith G. Ramos-Lopez was rear-ended by a County of
Passaic vehicle driven by a county employee, defendant Luis A. Vargas.
Plaintiff retained current counsel the day after the accident.
Eleven months later, on November 22, 2017, plaintiff filed a personal
injury complaint against the County of Passaic, Vargas and others. Seven days
after that filing, plaintiff moved for leave to file a late notice of tort claim. That
motion was denied, as was a later reconsideration motion.
Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the action as to the remaining
defendants and instituted this appeal, arguing that the "significant confusion"
caused by "erroneous information" in both a police report and in correspondence
with an insurer identified in the police report constituted an "extraordinary
circumstance" that warranted the filing of a late notice of claim. We find
insufficient merit in this argument to warrant further discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following few comments.
Plaintiff alleges her counsel's confusion arose from the fact that the police
report identified the other driver's insurer with a code that denoted the New
A-3530-17T2
3
Jersey Commercial Automobile Insurance Plan (NJAIP). Counsel wrote to
NJAIP five days after the accident. On March 17, 2017, NJAIP responded that
it had no record of the defendant identified; its letter's caption, however,
transposed the parties, so that the defendant was identified as plaintiff and vice
versa, suggesting that NJAIP was conveying only that it did not insure plaintiff,
not defendant. Plaintiff's counsel alleges it took no further steps until November
9, 2017 – a few weeks before the complaint was filed – when a firm attorney
wrote to NJAIP to note the mistake in NJAIP's March letter and to request
clarification. A week later, the NJAIP denied that it provided or secured
coverage for the County of Passaic.
In seeking leave to file a late notice of claim, plaintiff alluded to her
attorney's attempts to seek clarity about NJAIP's involvement caused by an
alleged inaccuracy in the police report. That police report, however, was not
confusing about ownership. A casual reader of the police report would quickly
observe that the report identified the owner of the vehicle that rear-ended
plaintiff's vehicle as the County of Passaic.
Plaintiff's alleged confusion – in the face of the clarity in the police report
about ownership of the negligent vehicle – was not persuasive nor did it
A-3530-17T2
4
constitute an "extraordinary" circumstance within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:8-
9, as interpreted by D.D. and O'Donnell.
Affirmed.
A-3530-17T2
5