ANTHONY CASTRONOVA VS. COUNTY OF BERGEN (L-8544-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0359-17T3
ANTHONY CASTRONOVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF BERGEN,
BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE (BCPO), BERGEN COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (BCSD),
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BERGEN
COUNTY PROSECUTOR, JOHN
MOLINELLI, BERGEN COUNTY
LIEUTENANT BCPO JOHN
HAVILAND, and BERGEN COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DETECTIVE
DARYL BAGNUOLO,
Defendants-Respondents.
____________________________________
Argued March 6, 2019 – Decided March 22, 2019
Before Judges Nugent and Reisner.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-8544-16.
Eric V. Kleiner argued the cause for appellant.
Frank P. Kapusinski, Assistant County Counsel, argued
the cause for respondents County of Bergen, Bergen
County Sheriff's Office and Bergen County Sheriff's
Office Detective Daryl Bagnuolo (Julien X. Neals,
Bergen County Counsel, attorney; Frank P. Kapusinski
of counsel and on the brief).
Robert J. McGuire, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondents State of New Jersey, Bergen
County Prosecutor's Office, John Molinelli and John
Haviland (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General,
attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Robert J. McGuire, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from two orders dated May 26, 2017, dismissing without
prejudice his complaint against defendants pursuant to the entire controversy
doctrine. He also appeals from two July 21, 2017 orders dismissing his
complaint with prejudice on the same grounds, and from a September 1, 2017
order denying reconsideration. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
Judge Robert C. Wilson in his written opinion issued with the May 26, 2017
orders. We add these brief comments.
We write this opinion for the parties and their counsel, who are familiar
with the underlying facts and history of this case. The details were set forth in
prior trial court opinions and in our previous opinion in Castronova v. County
of Bergen, No. A-0933-15 (App. Div. June 12, 2017), and they need not be
A-0359-17T3
2
repeated here. Suffice to say that in two successive lawsuits, plaintiff asserted
a variety of wrongdoing by Bergen County law enforcement officers, including
the Prosecutor and the Sheriff. The trial court dismissed the second lawsuit as
having been filed in violation of the entire controversy doctrine.
The Supreme Court most recently addressed the entire controversy
doctrine in Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman and
Stahl, P.C., __ N.J. __ (2019). Most pertinent to this appeal, the Court
confirmed that application of the doctrine depends on whether the prior and
current litigations arise from "interrelated facts" regardless of whether the
"successive claims share common legal issues." Id. at __, slip op. at 18 (quoting
DiTrolio v. Antiles, 142 N.J. 253, 271 (1995)). A litigant who, at the time of
the first lawsuit, is aware of the essential facts that would support a cause of
action against the defendant must ordinarily assert that cause of action in the
first litigation, rather than reserving it to be asserted in a future lawsuit. See
Cogdell v. Hosp. Ctr. at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 15-16 (1989).
In this case, plaintiff was well aware of the essential facts underlying his
second lawsuit, at the time he was litigating his first lawsuit, and he could have
amended the first complaint to assert the legal claims arising from those facts.
Instead, he withheld those claims and asserted them in a second lawsuit. We
A-0359-17T3
3
agree with the trial judge that the second lawsuit was barred by the entire
controversy doctrine. Plaintiff's legal arguments on this appeal are without
sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0359-17T3
4