RAHSAAN RIDDICK, JR. VS. TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON(L-728-14, OCEAN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1225-15T1
RAHSAAN RIDDICK, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON,
Defendant-Respondent,
and
BRENDAN BENECKE and
CHARLES REAGOR,
Defendants.
Argued December 7, 2016 – Decided May 26, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez and Accurso.1
1
Hon. Carol E. Higbee was a member of the panel before whom this
case was argued. The opinion was not approved for filing prior
to Judge Higbee's death on January 3, 2017. Pursuant to R. 2:13-
2(b), "Appeals shall be decided by panels of 2 judges designated
by the presiding judge of the part except when the presiding judge
determines that an appeal should be determined by a panel of 3
judges." The presiding judge has determined that this appeal
remains one that shall be decided by two judges. Counsel has
agreed to the substitution and participation of another judge from
the part and to waive reargument.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No.
L-728-14.
Richard B. Ansell argued the cause for
appellant (Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC,
attorneys; Mr. Ansell, of counsel and on the
briefs; Kristine M. Bergman, on the brief).
Jared J. Monaco argued the cause for
respondent (Gilmore & Monahan, P.A.,
attorneys; Christen E. McCullough, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
On October 9, 2015, a Law Division judge heard oral argument
on a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Township of
Jackson, opposed by plaintiff Rahsaan Riddick, Jr. Riddick had
sued the Township, in addition to individual defendants, for
damages resulting from the personal injuries he sustained during
an automobile accident.2 The Township argued that it was entitled
to immunity under the relevant portions of the Tort Claims Act
(TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to -12.3; specifically, N.J.S.A. 59:2-3 and
59:2-4 and cases following.
We need not describe the facts or circumstances underlying
the accident. We only recount the procedural history of the motion
for summary judgment. At the close of oral argument, the judge
indicated that he wanted to more closely study a particular case
2
Riddick's brief asserts that the claims against the other drivers
have been previously dismissed.
2 A-1225-15T1
cited by Riddick's counsel. He therefore rendered no decision on
the record at the close of argument. Unfortunately, it appears
that through some oversight, no decision was rendered on the record
at any time thereafter, and that no written statement of reasons
was issued later that day when the order granting summary judgment
was forwarded to counsel. Thus we vacate the decision and remand
for reconsideration of the submissions and for the judge to
memorialize, in accord with Rule 1:7-4(a), his reasons for
decision.
As has been so often reiterated, without findings of fact and
rulings of law, no meaningful appellate review can be conducted.
See Rutgers Univ. Student Assembly v. Middlesex Cty. Bd. of
Elections, 438 N.J. Super. 93, 106-07 (App. Div. 2014) (stating
this court was "unable to fulfill [its] appellate function" without
the trial court making factual findings and noting that our Supreme
Court has stated "[f]ailure to perform [this] duty [under Rule
1:7-4(a)] constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorney,
and the appellate court."). Although compliance with the rule is
always important, it is particularly consequential when a motion
for summary judgment is granted and a dismissal ensues. At that
point, the order is finally appealable of right. See R. 2:2-
3(a)(1); Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 7
on R. 1:6-2 (2017).
3 A-1225-15T1
Accordingly, we vacate the order granting summary judgment
and remand for reconsideration of the motion and compliance with
the rule. It is self-evident that we do not express an opinion
one way or the other as to the proper outcome of the motion. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
Vacated and remanded.
4 A-1225-15T1