Best v. City of Newark

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Decision Date: 11 July 2019
• Docket Number: DOCKET NO. A-3866-17T3
• Citation: Best v. City of Newark, DOCKET NO. A-3866-17T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Jul 11, 2019)
• Parties: LEONARD BEST, Administrator of the ESTATE OF LUIS CANDELARIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWARK, NEWARK POLICE CHIEF DARNELL HENRY, NEWARK DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY ANTHONY AMBROSE, and NEWARK POLICE SERGEANT THOMAS RUANE, Defendants-Respondents.

LEONARD BEST, Administrator of the ESTATEOF LUIS CANDELARIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWARK, NEWARK POLICE CHIEF DARNELL HENRY,NEWARK DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY ANTHONY AMBROSE,and NEWARK POLICE SERGEANT THOMAS RUANE, Defendants-Respondents.

DOCKET NO. A-3866-17T3

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued April 1, 2019

July 11, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Before Judges Messano, Fasciale and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-9051-12.

M. Anthony Barsimanto argued the cause for appellant (The Maglione Firm PC, attorneys; M. Anthony Barsimanto, on the briefs).

Gary Scott Lipshutz, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondents (Kenyatta K. Stewart, Corporation Counsel, attorney; Kenyatta K. Stewart and Gary Scott Lipshutz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On December 17, 2010, Newark Police Sergeant Thomas Ruane shot and seriously injured Luis Candelaria. It is undisputed that at the time Candelaria had a TEC-9 pistol concealed in the waistband of his pants. A grand jury indicted Candelaria, who subsequently pled guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(d), and third-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(3).

Candelaria provided the following factual basis under oath at his guilty plea allocution:

Q. I direct your attention to December 17, 2010. On that day were you in the City of Newark?

A. Yes.

Q. Specifically, were you in . . . the [Seth Boyden] Complex?

A. Yes.

Q. [D]id you have in your possession a . . . handgun?

A. Yes.

. . . .

Q. And you kn[e]w it was illegal to have not only a gun without a permit but also a defaced weapon . . . ?

A. Yes.

Q. And on that date were you approached by an officer?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you to stop and identify himself?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you . . . at that point resist him arresting you?

A. Yes.

The judge sentenced Candelaria to a five-year term of imprisonment with a three-year period of parole ineligibility.

Candelaria filed a complaint asserting various common law causes of action against defendants City of Newark, its police director and police chief, and Ruane, as well as a claim that defendants violated the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA), N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2. Candelaria was deposed while the suit was pending but was subsequently murdered "in an incident" described only as "unrelated to the claims asserted."

Plaintiff Leonard Best, administrator of Candelaria's estate, substituted into the litigation. During discovery, plaintiff served a subpoena duces tecum on the Northern Regional Medical Examiner (ME) for autopsy reports related to two civilian shooting deaths in 2003 and 2005 involving Ruane, and another subpoena on defendants, requesting the complete internal affairs (IA) investigation files related to those shootings and other complaints against Ruane alleging use of excessive force. Defendants successfully moved to quash both subpoenas. The judge found the information sought from the ME was "not relevant" in quashing the first subpoena, and, in quashing the second, held that by producing redacted versions of the IA files, defendants "satisfied [their] discovery obligations."

Defendants moved for summary judgment. After considering oral argument, the judge granted defendants' motion on several grounds. He determined that our decision in Bustamante v. Borough of Paramus, 413 N.J. Super. 276, 295 (App. Div. 2010), precluded any claim that Ruane used excessive force because "a favorable outcome in the civil action would be inconsistent with the admissions [Candelaria] made by pleading guilty." Second, he concluded Ruane's conduct was objectively reasonable because the struggle took place in a "very dangerous place[,] . . . at night." Candelariaadmitted he was told "to stop" and "admit[ted] that he resisted arrest." As a result, under the circumstances presented, the judge concluded Ruane was entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, because there was no constitutional violation, the remaining municipal defendants could not be liable pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The judge entered the April 13, 2018 order granting summary judgment as to all defendants on all claims and dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff now appeals that order, as well as the interlocutory orders quashing his discovery subpoenas.

I.

We limit our review of the grant of summary judgment to the record before the motion judge. See Ji v. Palmer, 333 N.J. Super. 451, 463-64 (App. Div. 2000). We address this issue first because it is dispositive of the appeal, and focus our attention, as plaintiff does, on the divergent descriptions of what occurred according to the two critical participants, Candelaria and Ruane.

In addition to the transcript of defendant's guilty plea, the motion judge had before him a transcript of Candelaria's deposition, in which he admitted obtaining the loaded handgun at a friend's house earlier in the evening of December 17, 2010. Candelaria tucked the gun in the waistband of his pantswhen he left, explaining he placed the handle to the right so he could remove the gun with "one fluid motion" if necessary. Candelaria admitted seeing Ruane, who was in full uniform, talking to someone in the housing complex as Candelaria walked toward his girlfriend's apartment. According to Candelaria, he anticipated Ruane would "probably . . . do a stop or a search or whatever" and thought he "could creep past and get inside the building."

Candelaria testified that Ruane grabbed him from behind as he walked past. Candelaria said his "reaction was to try to get [him] off of me." He unsuccessfully tried to throw Ruane "off [his] shoulder," after which Ruane spun him around and shot him. The entire incident took only seconds.

Contrary to his plea allocution, Candelaria testified that Ruane said nothing before firing the shot. Additionally, in written answers to interrogatories that were part of the motion record, Candelaria acknowledged that Ruane "felt a bulge in my pants," before spinning Candelaria around.

Ruane's deposition testimony, predictably, provided a different account. He was dispatched to assist another police unit in the housing complex, which he described as "so violent . . . with shootings and homicides." Ruane was speaking to an individual when Candelaria approached. This individual said toCandelaria, "get the f*** out of here," which Ruane said was the person's attempt to "stall . . . and confuse" Ruane so Candelaria could "get away."

Ruane noticed a "skinny barrel in [Candelaria's] pant leg" as he approached, with his arm "guarding [that] side," and his other arm "swinging" freely. Ruane put his arms around Candelaria as he passed, and confirmed the object was a gun. Ruane yelled, "stop, police" and informed Candelaria he was "under arrest." Candelaria, however, tried to reach for the weapon, and the two struggled for control of it before falling to the ground. Ruane was on his knees, underneath Candelaria, when he fired a shot believing Candelaria was about to pull the weapon from his waist.

II.

"An appellate court reviews a summary judgment decision by the same standard that governs the motion judge's determination." Caraballo v. City of Jersey City Police Dep't, 237 N.J. 255, 264 (2019) (citing RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire. Ins. Co., 234 N.J. 459, 472 (2018)).

Under that standard, summary judgment is appropriate when, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law."

[Ibid. (quoting RSI Bank, 234 N.J. at 472) (in turn quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).]

Our review is de novo. Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016) (citing Mem'l Props., LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 210 N.J. 512, 524 (2012)). Therefore, the trial court's legal analysis is not entitled to any deference. The Palisades At Fort Lee Condo. Ass'n v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 230 N.J. 427, 442 (2017) (citing Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

Plaintiff contends summary judgment was improper because "testimonial accounts" of Ruane's actions "varied," and therefore whether Ruane's conduct was reasonable or otherwise entitled to qualified immunity presented a genuine dispute that foreclosed summary judgment. He also argues that the judge misinterpreted our holding in Bustamante, and Candelaria's guilty plea did not bar the claims asserted in the complaint.

"The [CRA] was adopted in 2004 'for the broad purpose of assuring a state law cause of action for violations of state and federal constitutional rights and to fill any gaps in state statutory anti-discrimination protection.'" Ramos v. Flowers, 429 N.J. Super. 13, 21 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607, 611 (2008)). The CRA is analogous to its federal counterpart, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Filgueras v. Newark Public Schools, 426 N.J. Super. 449, 468(App. Div. 2012), and "[t]he interpretation given to parallel provisions of [§] 1983 may provide guidance in construing our [CRA]." Tumpson v. Farina, 218 N.J. 450, 474 (2014).

Here, the specific constitutional right at issue is the Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, and we analyze such claims under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989). "[T]he substantive...