ANTHONY CASTRONOVA VS. COUNTY OF BERGEN (L-1821-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0933-15T3
    ANTHONY CASTRONOVA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    COUNTY OF BERGEN,
    Defendant,
    and
    BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
    OFFICE (BCPO); STATE OF
    NEW JERSEY; and BERGEN
    COUNTY PROSECUTOR
    JOHN MOLINELLI,
    Defendants-Respondents.
    _____________________________
    Argued May 9, 2017 – Decided June 12, 2017
    Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New
    Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket
    No. L-1821-15.
    Eric V. Kleiner           argued     the    cause    for
    appellant.
    Ashley Gagnon, Deputy Attorney General, argued
    the cause for respondents (Christopher S.
    Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Lisa A.
    Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of
    counsel; Ms. Gagnon, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Plaintiff Anthony Castronova appeals from an August 7, 2015
    order   dismissing   his   complaint   against   former   Bergen    County
    Prosecutor John Molinelli, the Prosecutor's Office, Bergen County,
    and the State of New Jersey.1     He also appeals from an October 9,
    2015 order denying his motion for reconsideration and recusal of
    the motion judge, and from an October 14, 2015 order denying as
    moot his motion seeking to change venue from Bergen County.
    Plaintiff likewise appeals from a December 5, 2014 order granting
    a change of venue from Passaic County to Bergen County, and a
    December 19, 2014 order denying reconsideration.
    1
    Both sides presented the motion judge with materials outside the
    pleadings. However, the judge's decision rested on the pleadings
    rather than on those additional materials. See R. 4:6-2(e) (if
    the court considers materials outside the pleadings, the motion
    is converted into one for summary judgment). Nonetheless,
    plaintiff has included those additional materials in his appendix.
    We have reviewed them to determine whether, even with those
    supplemental materials, we could glean a viable cause of action
    here.   See Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 
    116 N.J. 739
    , 746 (1989).     None of those materials would make a
    difference to the outcome of this case. We note that plaintiff's
    brief makes reference to additional factual allegations, which
    were not set forth in his complaint and are not supported by the
    record presented to us.
    2                               A-0933-15T3
    Plaintiff resigned his position as a Haworth police officer,
    under suspicion of involvement in organized crime.              His letter of
    resignation stated that he resigned "in exchange for an agreement
    that I not be prosecuted for allegations of malfeasance in office
    and other related charges."         The letter also acknowledged that,
    upon request, his former employer would provide a copy of the
    letter to any prospective law enforcement employer and "shall be
    immune from civil suit for so doing."
    In    his   complaint,    plaintiff      asserted   that    Prosecutor
    Molinelli thereafter attempted to persuade other law enforcement
    agencies to refrain from hiring plaintiff, based on plaintiff's
    resignation from the Haworth police department on suspicion of
    criminal involvement.       Plaintiff alleged that, as part of that
    effort,      Molinelli   asked   officials      of   one   of   those    police
    departments to listen to wiretap tapes from an organized crime
    investigation.      Notably, the complaint does not allege that the
    information about plaintiff's resignation was false or that the
    wiretap tapes contained false information about him.
    Plaintiff's complaint also recited that the Bergen County
    Prosecutor's Office indicted him for false swearing in connection
    with   his    application   to    two   other    police    departments.      The
    Prosecutor accused plaintiff of failing to disclose that he had
    resigned from the Haworth police department to avoid criminal
    3                               A-0933-15T3
    prosecution.    Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the prosecutions
    were   ill-motivated   and   unjustified,   and   interfered   with   his
    ability to obtain another law enforcement job.
    Plaintiff asserted causes of action for tortious interference
    with economic advantage and related theories, invasion of privacy,
    abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress for
    the allegedly unwarranted criminal prosecutions, intentional or
    negligent misrepresentation, violation of constitutional rights,
    and claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-
    2.
    In a comprehensive written opinion dated August 7, 2015,
    Judge Robert C. Wilson concluded that, even taking plaintiff's
    assertions as true and viewing the complaint indulgently, the
    complaint failed to state a claim. Among other things, he reasoned
    that Molinelli was entitled to prosecutorial immunity, and that
    plaintiff had no constitutionally-protected property interest in
    prospective employment as a law enforcement officer.
    Our review of the judge's order entered under Rule 4:6-2(e)
    is de novo.    See Major v. Maguire, 
    224 N.J. 1
    , 26 (2016) (citing
    Smerling v. Harrah's Entm't, Inc., 
    389 N.J. Super. 181
    , 186 (App.
    Div. 2006)). Having reviewed the record in light of that standard,
    we affirm the August 7, 2015 order for the reasons stated in Judge
    Wilson's August 7 opinion.      We affirm the October 9, 2015 order
    4                             A-0933-15T3
    denying reconsideration, for the reasons stated in the judge's
    written opinion issued with the order.
    Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the orders relating
    to the change of venue from Passaic County to Bergen County, for
    the reasons stated by Assignment Judge Ernest M. Caposela in his
    written opinion dated January 9, 2015.      See Rossbach v. Evening
    News Publ'g Co., 
    3 N.J. Super. 143
    , 145 (App. Div. 1949).                We
    likewise   affirm   Assignment   Judge   Bonnie   J.   Mizdol's     order
    dismissing, on mootness grounds, plaintiff's motion to change
    venue from Bergen County after his complaint was dismissed.
    Plaintiff's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit
    to warrant further discussion.    R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
    Affirmed.
    5                               A-0933-15T3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-0933-15T3

Filed Date: 6/12/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024