PER CURIAM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Maven and Carroll.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1864-12.
William C. Matsikoudis, Jersey City Corporation Counsel, attorney for appellant (Priti R. Vakharia, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
In this unopposed appeal, defendant City of Jersey City (City), appeals from the May 11, 2012 order, granting plaintiffs Nabil and Susan Abdelkader leave to file a late notice of tort claim pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. We remand for further proceedings.
Defendants Bergen Square Condominium Associates and R.H. Elsaraya Coffee Shop did not participate in this appeal.
The complaint included a per quod claim on behalf of Susan.
Final judgments include "[a]n order granting . . . a motion to extend the time to file a notice of tort claim pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, whether entered in the cause or by a separate action." R. 2:2-3(a)(3).
The facts adduced from the limited appellate record indicate that on June 29, 2011, plaintiff Nabil Abdelkader fell over an uneven sidewalk on privately owned property, located at 142 Vroom Street in the City of Jersey City. On August 5, 2011, letters of representation were sent to the property owner and tenant. The property owner's insurance company contacted plaintiff's counsel on or about February 27, 2012, suggesting that the City should be put on notice. On March 8, 2012, plaintiff learned from the insurance company that "the tree was a City tree and was the City's responsibility to maintain."
On April 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to file a late notice of claim against the City and an amended complaint. Although the City opposed, the court granted the motion without oral argument. This appeal followed.
The motion record has not been provided on appeal
On appeal, the City contends that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's late notice of claim, and that plaintiff did not establish extraordinary circumstances under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. Specifically, the City argues that plaintiff failed to make "reasonably prompt and thorough investigation of [the] accident site to determine the owner of the tree that allegedly created the uneven sidewalk [p]laintiff fell on." The attorney certification made in support of its motion avers that the City will not be prejudiced by the late notice as the site was examined and pictures taken of the condition within one month of the accident.
The Tort Claims Act requires that a notice of claim be filed with the public entity within ninety days after the accrual of the cause of action. N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. This section permits relaxation of the ninety-day limitation "provided that the public entity is not substantially prejudiced thereby," but claimant will only be permitted to file this notice "within one year after the accrual of his claim." N.J.S.A. 59:8-9.
N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to -12-3.
--------
The granting or denial of permission to file a late notice of claim within the stated one-year period is a matter within the court's discretion. Ibid.; Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134, 146 (1988). Permission to file a notice of late claim is contingent upon two requirements. First, the court must determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist for the claimant's failure to file within the ninety-day period; and second, whether the public entity will be substantially prejudiced by the granting of the request. McDade v Siazon, 208 N.J. 463, 468 (2011).
Here, the record indicates that following the accident on June 29, 2011, plaintiff did not file a notice of claim within ninety days but filed a notice of motion for filing of a late claim on April 23, 2012. The court entered an order without oral argument; however, in granting the motion, the judge failed to set forth any facts or reasons undergirding her decision. A judge has a duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law "on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right." R. 1:7-4(a). Furthermore, "[m]eaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth the reasons for his or her opinion." Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990).
In the absence of a complete record and a statement of judicial reasons, we cannot assess the validity of defendant's claims on appeal. We are compelled, therefore, to remand this matter to the trial court for a thorough statement of reasons supporting the grant of plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, the court shall re-open the motion for oral argument in order to create a full record upon which the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be made with regard to the motion for leave to file a late tort claim notice.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION