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.

Mark Johnson v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


October 6, 2011

MARK JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-109-08.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 28, 2011

Before Judges Waugh and St. John.

Plaintiff Mark Johnson appeals from the order of the Law Division dismissing his complaint against defendant New Jersey Transit Rail Operations.

Johnson's complaint alleged causes of action for racial discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and spoliation of evidence. Defendant moved for summary judgment in January 2010. Johnson opposed the motion. On March 1, 2010, the motion judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

In a detailed written decision, Judge Alvaro L. Iglesias determined that Johnson's claims with respect to events he alleged occurred in 2003 and 2004 were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment. He also concluded that Johnson's claims for intentional infliction of emotional stress were barred because Johnson failed to comply with the notice provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 to -11, specifically N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a). Finally, Judge Iglesias concluded that the New Jersey courts do not recognize a tort cause of action for spoliation of evidence.

On appeal, Johnson contends that each of those determinations was incorrect. Having reviewed the issues raised on appeal in light of the record and applicable law, we find them to lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Consequently, we affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Iglesias in his comprehensive written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

Affirmed.

20111006

© 1992-2011 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.