Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fusco v. Belleville Police Dep't

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


May 29, 2008

NORMAN FUSCO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BELLEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWNSHIP OF BELLEVILLE AND DETECTIVE TOM GAZZO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-8023-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 13, 2008

Before Judges Simonelli and King.

This is a claim for money damages under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:3-3. Judge Carey ruled in favor of the defendants, the Police Department of the Township of Belleville and Detective Tom Gazzo in a detailed seven-page oral opinion.

Plaintiff claims in his only point that he "has not been afforded an opportunity to complete discovery." Plaintiff was arrested under a warrant for an unspecified non-violent offense. Upon arrest, plaintiff allegedly asked the officer to handcuff him in the front, not the back, because of a medical condition. The officer refused. Plaintiff does not allege a violation of the rules relating to the issuance of a summons, rather than a formal arrest. R. 3:3-1.

Plaintiff does not tell us just what he would hope to discover further or how more inquiry might assist his case. He tells us nothing specific about his vague injury or discomfort claim. He provides no medical documentation for his claim. Presumably plaintiff himself is in control of all important information to support his liability and damage claim but he tells us nothing of substance about his case.

We see nothing in this record which suggests that the motion judge departed from the applicable standard of "objective reasonableness" as to police conduct. See Wildoner v. Boro of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 372, 387 (2000). Thus, we affirm for the reasons given by Judge Carey in his detailed oral opinion of April 27, 2007.

Affirmed.

20080529

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.