VINCENT GEIGER VS. JACKSON TOWNSHIP (L-0463-18, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3710-17T1
VINCENT GEIGER,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JACKSON TOWNSHIP,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Argued January 16, 2019 – Decided January 30, 2019
Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-0463-18.
Barry A. Stieber argued the cause for appellant
(Gilmore & Monahan, PA, attorneys; Barry A. Stieber,
on the brief).
Joseph A. Petrillo argued the cause for respondent
(Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP,
attorneys; Joseph A. Petrillo, of counsel and on the
brief; Nicole M. Grzeskowiak, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this personal injury action, which arose out of a vehicular accident,
Defendant Township of Jackson appeals from an order that plaintiff Vincent
Geiger's tort claim notice to the Township was timely served. The New Jersey
Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, requires that "[a] claim . . . for death
or for injury or damage to person or to property . . . be presented [to the public
entity] . . . not later than the [ninetieth] day after accrual of the cause of action."
N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. "Generally, in the case of tortious conduct resulting in injury,
the date of accrual will be the date of the incident on which the negligen t act or
omission took place." Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 117 (2000). An
exception exists in cases "where the victim either is unaware that he has been
injured or, although aware of an injury, does not know that a third party is
responsible." Ibid.Here, Judge Mark A. Troncone determined that the "exception" applied
and that plaintiff timely filed a tort claim notice with the Township after he
should have become aware of the potential claim. We affirm, substantially for
the reasons expressed by Judge Troncone in his oral opinion and in his
supplemental written opinion. The Township's arguments are without sufficient
merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3710-17T1
2