Ts New Jersey

Full title:T.S., K.H., and E.J.T., guardian ad litem for H.S., a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE, NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPER, CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT, NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPER, DAN CONNOLLY, LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS OF THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS OF THE SOMERSET COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS OF THE MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS OF THE FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, LT. J. HOLLAR #5280, DETECTIVE I G. SEFICK #5974, DETECTIVE D. MURAGLIA #6996, DETECTIVE I T. KELSHAW #6231, DSFC P. CIANO, #5133, DETECTIVE J. ASPROMONTI (MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE), SGT. FRANCIS (MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICER), TROOPER PETERSON #6278, (NJSP TROOP “B” TACTICAL PATROL UNIT), and DSFC D E STRASSHEIM, DET. DOUGLAS SPRAGUE, (SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT), OFFICER RICHARD BELOTTI, (SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT), OFFICER MARK KURTZ, (MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT), OFFICER JOSEPH MORRIALE, (MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT), OFFICER FRANK SAUTNER, (MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT), DET. ROBERT MAZALEWSKI, (OLD BRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT), LT. RAY BASON, (MIDDLESEX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), and OFFICER KEVIN KOSA, (MIDDLESEX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), Defendants-Respondents, and LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS OF THE PISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE SMITH (PISCATAWAY POLICE DEPARTMENT), and DETECTIVE ORANCHAK (PISCATAWAY POLICE DEPARTMENT), Defendants.

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Jul 20, 2022

Facts

In this civil rights and tort action arising from the violation of a knock-and-announce provision of a search warrant, plaintiffs T.S., K.H., and E.J.T., guardian ad litem for H.S., appeal an October 9, 2019 order granting summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we reverse and remand for trial.

Issue

Decision

Concerning the denial of plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions based on discovery violations, we are hampered in our review due to the judge’s failure to make appropriate factual findings and legal conclusions, as required by Rule 1:7-4(a). “Meaningful 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). Thus, we must reverse and remand that issue to accord the judge an opportunity to provide his reasons for denying the motion. 

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. 

Also, Read

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

1 × 4 =