Poser pro 2014 rwby8/17/2023 Plaintiff graduated from the 121st class of the State Police Academy on April 21, 2001. We derive the following facts from evidence submitted by the parties in support of, and in opposition to, the summary judgment motion, and view them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. ![]() That being said, we agree with the judge's ruling on the summary judgment motion and affirm. However, because defendants have not objected to our review of the Augorder granting them summary judgment, and addressed the summary judgment motion in their merits brief, we may address the merits of the summary judgment motion. If the notice of appeal "designates only the order entered on a motion for reconsideration, it is only that proceeding and not the order that generated the reconsideration motion that may be reviewed." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. ![]() On plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the judge maintained his position.Īt the outset, we point out that plaintiff's notice of appeal only identified the Novemorder denying her motion for reconsideration. In granting summary judgment, the motion judge concluded plaintiff had failed to raise disputed issues of material facts required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation and withstand summary judgment. 34:19-1 to-14, alleging defendants transferred her to another unit as retaliation for filing a complaint against a superior. In her complaint, plaintiff asserted a cause of action for retaliation under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. Plaintiff Justine Poser, a member of the New Jersey Division of State Police, appeals from a NovemLaw Division order upholding its Augorder granting summary judgment to defendants, the State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Division of State Police, Colonel Rick Fuentes, Major Hugh Johnson, and John Does 1-5 (collectively defendants), and dismissing her complaint with prejudice. ![]() NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |