Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

31 BRIAN KRUZEL v. CITY OF NEWARK -- rank: 756

... the 90th day after accrual of the cause of action.' N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. A claimant who fails to file notice of his claim ... less extraordinary, reason warranting relaxation of the time constraints of N.J.S.A. 59:8-8.' Ibid. We found that 4 Plaintiff assumes Frelinghuysen Avenue is ... obscured' as a condition of relaxing the time bar of N.J.S.A. 59:8-8.' Id. at 458. Here, as in Leidy, 'there is no ... can be filed, that another public entity was responsible. See N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The Supreme Court has not included such a duty in ...

docket:	a5231-15
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-12-19
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	67668

32 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a3655-19.opn.html -- rank: 751

... notice of his claim within [ninety] days as provided in [ N.J.S.A.] 59:8-8 . . . may, in the discretion of a judge of the Superior ... notice of claim within the period of time prescribed by [ N.J.S.A.] 59:8-8 of this act or to file a motion seeking leave ...

docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	43236

33 RICHARD I. & LOIS M. WOOD, ET AL., VS COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, ET AL. -- rank: 751

... mandated claim form within the period of time provided by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 or for failing to move for leave to file a late notice of claim within a reasonable time thereafter. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, or sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances for the failure to ... of claim with Florence Township within the time prescribed by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, but they also failed to establish sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary ... file the notice of claim within the period prescribed by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. See Escalante v. Township of Cinnaminson , 283 N.J. Super ...

docket:	a5726-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1997-06-26
status:	published
citation:	302 N.J.Super. 371
Document Size:	21674

34 K.S.1 v. RYAN VERRECCHIO -- rank: 751

... claim within ninety days of its accrual, as required under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a) of the Tort Claims Act, (TCA), N.J.S ... to warrant the relaxation of the ninety-day deadline in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a). The MCPO argues the trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff ... claim within ninety days of their accrual as required by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and did not present any evidence of extraordinary circumstances to ... entity within ninety days of the accrual of the claim, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. 'If notice is not timely served in 6 The complaint ... s Pier, Inc., 230 N.J. 142, 154 (2017) (quoting N.J.S.A. 59:8-8). However, the ''harshness' of the ninety- day requirement is alleviated ... Dentistry of N.J., 213 N.J. 130, 147 (2013); N.J.S.A. 59:8-8; N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. The Supreme ...

docket:	a1669-16
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2019-05-17
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	19890

35 GINAMARIE GOMES v. THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH -- rank: 751

... the contractor within the ninety-day period set forth in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The judge determined that CCS, as the provider of medical ... the court which is not implicated by the present appeal. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. If the claimant fails to do so, the statute dictates ... N.J. 610 (1978). See Margolis & Novack, supra , comment on N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, at p. 266 (2016). The contents of a proper notice ... posed before us is simply whether the notice provisions under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and :8-9 require courts to treat such contractors as ... as identified by the Supreme Court in Beauchamp , support construing N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 to require service of a notice upon a private entity ... Hoag is inapposite to the notice question posed here under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. We therefore reverse the trial judge's dismissal of ...

docket:	a1679-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2016-04-14
status:	published
citation:	444 N.J.Super. 479 134 A.3d 33
Document Size:	48388

36 BETTY HOFF v. TOWNSHIP OF MILLTOWN -- rank: 749

... owned by a public entity, plaintiff was obligated, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, to serve a tort claims notice upon that entity within ... ninety days of accrual of the cause of action. See N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. However, the court, in its discretion, may allow a later ... of tort claim after the ninety-day period mandated by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 has expired. In addition to meeting that requirement of "extraordinary ... day deadline for filing a notice of tort claim under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. We concluded in Zois that the breakdown within the attorney ...

docket:	a5460-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-08-02
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	29290

37 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a3113-17.opn.html -- rank: 749

... to file a notice of tort claim as required under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The court rejected plaintiff's argument the letters she sent ... s obligation to file a notice of tort claim under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The court found plaintiff failed to serve a notice of ... the 90th day after accrual of the cause of action,' N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Where a putative plaintiff fails to file a timely notice ... barred from recovering against a public entity or employee.' 9 N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. We have recognized these requirements should not be a 'trap ... or whether the letter would have been timely filed under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 if it had constituted a compliant notice of tort claim ...

docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	73588

38 Estate of ALHAM BARAKAT v. ROOSEVELT CARE CENTER AT EDISON -- rank: 749

... J. Super. 52 (App. Div. 2021), found 'that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 the . . . accrual occurred on January 5th, 2021, the day after ... otherwise provided in [ N.J.S.A.] 59:8-9 . . . . [N.J.S.A. 59:8-8.] N.J.S.A. 59:8-9 provides that [a ... of claim was filed within ninety days' as required by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8.' Ibid. ''If not, the third task is to decide whether ... intend for the judiciary to construe the term 'accrual' in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 in a manner that abandons all vestiges of basic human ...

docket:	a0033-21
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2022-07-29
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	34707

39 RICHARD D. WILES, JR and LISA ROSE-WILES v. BRIAN W. WAY and COUNTY OF UNION - BRIAN W. WAY v. COUNTY OF UNION, UNION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE CO.,1 COUNTY OF UNION and UNION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT -- rank: 747

... entity on notice of a potential claim as required by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The case was presented for mandatory arbitration on January 10 ... failure to serve the TCA notice of claim required under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. 5 II Plaintiff argues that the court erred in permitting ... on plaintiff's failure to file the notice required under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. On this last point, plaintiff argues that Way should be ... J. 532 , 539 (1999). The notice of claim requirements under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 "are an important component of the statutory scheme." McDade v ... 3, within ninety days of the accrual of such claim. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. A claimant who fails to file the notice of claim ... failed to serve a timely notice of claim pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, and has failed to file a motion for leave ...

docket:	a2741-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-06-04
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	25049

40 JENNIFER L. HENDERSON, et al. v. JEFFREY HERMAN, M.D., et al. -- rank: 742

... of tort claim filed within ninety days as required by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, and the third order dismisses plaintiffs' state law tort claims ... notice to both the public entity and the public employee, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 only requires that notice be given to the public entity ... entity, it would have expressly done so when it amended N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Again, it did not. Accordingly, the State's argument is ... or substantially complied with the notice of claim requirement under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 or whether they were excused from doing so. We hold ...

docket:	A0397-04
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2004-12-23
status:	published
citation:	373 N.J. Super. 625 862 A.2d 121
Document Size:	36290

41 RICHARD LEIDY v. COUNTY OF OCEAN -- rank: 740

... N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 to -11, see N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, sent a notice of tort claim to the New Jersey ... obscured" as a condition of relaxing the time bar of N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Two medical malpractice cases are illustrative. In Lowe , supra , 158 ... mandated claim form within the period of time provided by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 or for failing to move for leave to file a ...

docket:	a4127-06
court:	njappellate
decided:	2008-02-28
status:	published
citation:	398 N.J.Super. 449
Document Size:	54317

42 ANNA ANTONINICH v. BIANCA HALLOWAY -- rank: 738

... Claims Act within the ninety-day period provided for in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, and granting plaintiff's cross-motion to file notice out ... November 8, 2011 for Election Day, the due date under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 was November 7, 2011, because that was the ninetieth day ... the untimeliness of the service under the timeframe established in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Plaintiff served defendants with a civil complaint on December 5 ... 111 , 118-19 (2000)). Here, the ninety-day clock under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 began to tick on August 9, 2011, the day plaintiff ... last day to serve the Tort Claims Act notice under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. This dereliction is rendered even more egregious when considering that ... S.A. 59:8-4 within the timeframe mandated in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The record is equally clear that plaintiff's failure ...

docket:	a2849-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-04-04
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	18477

43 MICHAEL BROWN v. PASSAIC COUNTY -- rank: 733

... insurance carrier that the notice was filed out of time. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. The attorney responded in the same month, challenging the decision ... to file a notice of claim against a public entity. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a). A claim relating to a cause of action for ... claim except as otherwise provided in section 59:8-9 . . . . [ N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 (footnote omitted).] This notice requirement was created: (1) to allow ... an investigation and give notice to the correct public entity. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a) requires that a plaintiff seeking to file a claim ... intended to achieve the Legislature's goals. . . . . Strict application of N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a) thus furthers the legislative intent. Given the interplay between ... shall be forever barred from recovering against [the] public entity." N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. However, the Legislature recognized that discretionary judicial relief from ...

docket:	a3050-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-07-02
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	24996

44 ROBERT CAMIDGE v. MANASQUAN BOARD OF EDUCATION -- rank: 733

... the ninetieth day after accrual of the cause of action." N.J.S.A. 59:8-8; see also N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 (defining ... accrued on plaintiff's eighteenth birthday, October 9, 2009. See N.J.S.A. 59:8-8; Rost v. Bd. of Educ. , 137 N.J. Super. 76 ... the ninety-day period for filing claim notices prescribed by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Plaintiff sought to avail himself of the late claim provision ...

docket:	a0970-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-06-15
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	33109

45 ROBERT MOTTRAM v. WILLIAM H. BUCKMAN ESQ -- rank: 733

... the 90th day after accrual of the cause of action." N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. According to the TCA, "[a]ccrual shall mean the date ... in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Claims based upon a false arrest "arise[] at the time ... to be filed beyond the ninety-day window established in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 if the claimant can show "sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstance ... notice of his claim against these public actors provided in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 did not begin until April 25, 2008, the day on ... the cases that have construed the TCA notice requirements under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. IV Rachmiel ...

docket:	a5982-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-05-06
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	47125