Preview
BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 1 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304
ERIC V. KLEINER, ESQ.
385 SYLVAN AVENUE
FILED
SUITE 29, 2"? FLOOR
ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ 07632
NOV ~5 2909
(201) 394-6229 Robert ¢ + Wilson
BAR NO. 003951988 J.8,
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF THOMAS ALETTA
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
THOMAS ALETTA CIVIL DIVISION; BERGEN COUNTY
Plaintiff,
Vv
DOCKET NO. BER-L-007873-15
BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE (BCPQ)
(ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SERVANTS,
AGENTS, ASSIGNEES, DELEGATES, AND/OR
EMPLOYEES);
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
(ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SERVANTS,
AGENTS, ASSIGNEES, DELEGATES, AND/OR
EMPLOYEES);
BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR CIVIL ACTION
JOHN MOLINELLI
(IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE Dewrat Fees Ge
AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY);
BCPO LIEUTENANT JAY HAVILAND Kenora 2/8 SCL
(IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE Be rhe
AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY);
BCPO AP DANIEL KEITEL Attache &! GV]
(IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE
AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY);
HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT (HPD)
DETECTIVE SARA MALVASIA
(IN HER INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE
AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY);
HPD POLICE OFFICER NILES MALVASIA ORDER
(IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE
AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY);
HPD POLICE OFFICER LAURA CAMPOS
(IN HER INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE
AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY);
JOHN DOE/S 1-10
(FICTITIOUS NAME/S OF OF FICERS/PERSONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES
NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME OF
THE FILING OF COMPLAINT);
ABC CORPORATION/S [CORP.], ABC PUBLIC
ENTITIES 1-10,
BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 2 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304
(FICTITIOUS NAMES INTENDING TO DESIGNATE THE
CORPORATIONSS, ENTITY OR ENTITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR
CAUSING PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF
AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF COMPLAINT).
Defendants.
THIS MATTER HAVING been opened to the Court by the above named plaintiff on notice to
defense counsel, and for good cause having been shown;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's MOTION TO RECONSIDER is hereby
Seiel
7
3
aeunitiecd-emittietottorrsacieated>
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the motion to recuse somal
ent
HONORABLE ROBERT C. WILSON, J.S.C.
Yes [U~No [ ] *motion opposed
BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 3 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304
Aletta v. County of Bergen
DOCKET No. BER-L-7873-15
RIDER TO ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 5, 2020
THIS MATTER initially began when Plaintiff had twice filed unacceptable, scandalous,
and impertinent complaints against the various Defendants. As part of the original dismissal of
Plaintiff's Complaint, this Court identified various portions of the first pleading that were
improper. Plaintiff subsequently filed a nearly indistinguishable complaint from the first. This
Court determined again that it was improper and scandalous, and dismissed the second pleading
as well. The Appellate Division found, back on April 13, 2018, that these dismissals were
warranted and agreed that the Complaint was unnecessarily scandalous and improper, but that the
dismissal must be without prejudice. Plaintiff then only motioned this Court, on July 6, 2020, to
restore the matter by filing a complaint that was still in contradistinction to the Appellate Division
decision. This Court then denied that motion on July 24, 2020 and directed that Plaintiff be
afforded an opportunity to retain a board-certified civil trial attorney to draft an acceptable
complaint. The Court did not preclude Plaintiff's original counsel from also representing Plaintiff.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
Reconsideration motions are governed by R. 4:49-2, which provides “the motion shall state
with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling
decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or to which it has erred.” Such motions
are “within the sound discretion of the Court, to be exercised in the interest of justice.” Cummings
vy. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (citing D’Atria v. D’ Atria, 242 N.J. Super.
392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)). The motion will be granted only if the Court is satisfied that the
judgment was based upon plainly incorrect reasoning, that the Court failed to consider material
evidence, or that the Court should consider new information under the circumstances. Town of
BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 4 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304
Phillipsburg v. Block, 380 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 2005); Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 384.
Further, “a litigant should not seek reconsideration merely because of dissatisfaction with a
decision of the Court.” D?Atria, 242 N.J. Super. at 401. “Reconsideration cannot be used to
expand the record or reargue a motion.” Capital Fin. Co. of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi
398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App. Div. 2008).
The policy justifications underlying the Court’s rules governing motions for
reconsideration provide that “motion practice must come to an end at some point, and if repetitive
bites at the apple are allowed, the core will swiftly sour.” Id. at 402.
Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases which fall
into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the Court has expressed
its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2)
it is obvious that the Court either did not consider, or failed to
appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence [...]
Alternatively, if a litigant wishes to bring new or additional
information to the Court’s attention which it could not have
provided on the first application, the Court should, in the interest of
justice (and in the exercise of sound discretion), consider the
evidence.
Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 384 (internal citations omitted).
The Court notes Plaintiff's filing for a motion to reconsider is untimely. Specifically, this
Court’s last Order was dated July 24, 2020, and yet the movant did not file for reconsideration
until October 24, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that the eCourts system somehow failed to send him
electronic notifications about the filing of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office’s opposition or
notifications regarding the Court’s prior decision. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration must be
denied because both the motion to restore and the motion for recusal are simply without any merit,
and the procedural deficiencies are therefore of no moment.
With respect to the motion to restore, this Court imposed on Plaintiff certain reasonable
conditions for restoration as directed by the Appellate Division. After remanding the case, the
BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 5 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304
Appellate Division clarified this Court’s discretion to focus on three possible options: (1) this
Court could itself strike the offending paragraphs of the most recent complaint; (2) this Court could
appoint an attorney, to be paid by Plaintiff, to assist the Court to conform the complaint to this
Court’s prior opinion; or (3) this Court could impose another remedy that conformed with the
Appellate Division’s decision. Although Plaintiff contends that this Court was not permitted to
require Plaintiff to retain a certified civil trial attorney, the Appellate Division actually would have
the allowed the Court to choose Plaintiff's attorney for him. Instead, this Court provided Plaintiff
the opportunity to select his own certified civil trial attorney to draft and execute the Complaint.
The Court did not preclude counsel from representing plaintiff, it merely ordered the complaint to
be refiled, pursuant to the instructions of the Appellate Division, so that the complaint would
finally comport to an acceptable pleading on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's motion for recusal is also without merit. Plaintiff cites general law explaining
when recusal is appropriate but does not present any argument as to why recusal is warranted or
what the factual basis for recusal might be. A motion for recusal may be granted for any reason
which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead
counsel or the parties to believe so. R. 1:12-1(f). The disposition of the motion is, at least in the
first instance, entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose recusal is sought. Magill
v. Casel, 238 N.J. Super. 57, 63 (App. Div. 1990). It is improper for a judge to withdraw from a
case upon a mere suggestion that he is disqualified “unless the alleged cause of recusal is known
by him to exist or is shown to be true in fact. Hundred East Credit Corp. v. Eric Schuster, 212 N.J.
Super. 350, 358 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 107 N.J. 60 (1986). Lastly, before the court may be
disqualified on the ground of an appearance of bias, the belief that the proceedings were unfair
must be objectively reasonable. State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 (1997).
BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 6 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304
Mere dissatisfaction with a Court’s prior ruling is not grounds for recusal. The Plaintiff’s motion
for recusal is based merely on the erroneous subjective beliefs of counsel, and therefore must be
denied.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Preview
BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 1 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304 ERIC V. KLEINER, ESQ. 385 SYLVAN AVENUE FILED SUITE 29, 2"? FLOOR ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NJ 07632 NOV ~5 2909 (201) 394-6229 Robert ¢ + Wilson BAR NO. 003951988 J.8, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF THOMAS ALETTA SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY THOMAS ALETTA CIVIL DIVISION; BERGEN COUNTY Plaintiff, Vv DOCKET NO. BER-L-007873-15 BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (BCPQ) (ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SERVANTS, AGENTS, ASSIGNEES, DELEGATES, AND/OR EMPLOYEES); STATE OF NEW JERSEY (ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SERVANTS, AGENTS, ASSIGNEES, DELEGATES, AND/OR EMPLOYEES); BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR CIVIL ACTION JOHN MOLINELLI (IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE Dewrat Fees Ge AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY); BCPO LIEUTENANT JAY HAVILAND Kenora 2/8 SCL (IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE Be rhe AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY); BCPO AP DANIEL KEITEL Attache &! GV] (IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY); HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT (HPD) DETECTIVE SARA MALVASIA (IN HER INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY); HPD POLICE OFFICER NILES MALVASIA ORDER (IN HIS INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY); HPD POLICE OFFICER LAURA CAMPOS (IN HER INDIVIDUAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY); JOHN DOE/S 1-10 (FICTITIOUS NAME/S OF OF FICERS/PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF COMPLAINT); ABC CORPORATION/S [CORP.], ABC PUBLIC ENTITIES 1-10, BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 2 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304 (FICTITIOUS NAMES INTENDING TO DESIGNATE THE CORPORATIONSS, ENTITY OR ENTITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF COMPLAINT). Defendants. THIS MATTER HAVING been opened to the Court by the above named plaintiff on notice to defense counsel, and for good cause having been shown; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's MOTION TO RECONSIDER is hereby Seiel 7 3 aeunitiecd-emittietottorrsacieated> IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the motion to recuse somal ent HONORABLE ROBERT C. WILSON, J.S.C. Yes [U~No [ ] *motion opposed BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 3 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304 Aletta v. County of Bergen DOCKET No. BER-L-7873-15 RIDER TO ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 5, 2020 THIS MATTER initially began when Plaintiff had twice filed unacceptable, scandalous, and impertinent complaints against the various Defendants. As part of the original dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, this Court identified various portions of the first pleading that were improper. Plaintiff subsequently filed a nearly indistinguishable complaint from the first. This Court determined again that it was improper and scandalous, and dismissed the second pleading as well. The Appellate Division found, back on April 13, 2018, that these dismissals were warranted and agreed that the Complaint was unnecessarily scandalous and improper, but that the dismissal must be without prejudice. Plaintiff then only motioned this Court, on July 6, 2020, to restore the matter by filing a complaint that was still in contradistinction to the Appellate Division decision. This Court then denied that motion on July 24, 2020 and directed that Plaintiff be afforded an opportunity to retain a board-certified civil trial attorney to draft an acceptable complaint. The Court did not preclude Plaintiff's original counsel from also representing Plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. Reconsideration motions are governed by R. 4:49-2, which provides “the motion shall state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or to which it has erred.” Such motions are “within the sound discretion of the Court, to be exercised in the interest of justice.” Cummings vy. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (citing D’Atria v. D’ Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)). The motion will be granted only if the Court is satisfied that the judgment was based upon plainly incorrect reasoning, that the Court failed to consider material evidence, or that the Court should consider new information under the circumstances. Town of BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 4 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304 Phillipsburg v. Block, 380 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 2005); Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 384. Further, “a litigant should not seek reconsideration merely because of dissatisfaction with a decision of the Court.” D?Atria, 242 N.J. Super. at 401. “Reconsideration cannot be used to expand the record or reargue a motion.” Capital Fin. Co. of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App. Div. 2008). The policy justifications underlying the Court’s rules governing motions for reconsideration provide that “motion practice must come to an end at some point, and if repetitive bites at the apple are allowed, the core will swiftly sour.” Id. at 402. Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the Court has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the Court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence [...] Alternatively, if a litigant wishes to bring new or additional information to the Court’s attention which it could not have provided on the first application, the Court should, in the interest of justice (and in the exercise of sound discretion), consider the evidence. Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 384 (internal citations omitted). The Court notes Plaintiff's filing for a motion to reconsider is untimely. Specifically, this Court’s last Order was dated July 24, 2020, and yet the movant did not file for reconsideration until October 24, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that the eCourts system somehow failed to send him electronic notifications about the filing of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office’s opposition or notifications regarding the Court’s prior decision. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration must be denied because both the motion to restore and the motion for recusal are simply without any merit, and the procedural deficiencies are therefore of no moment. With respect to the motion to restore, this Court imposed on Plaintiff certain reasonable conditions for restoration as directed by the Appellate Division. After remanding the case, the BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 5 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304 Appellate Division clarified this Court’s discretion to focus on three possible options: (1) this Court could itself strike the offending paragraphs of the most recent complaint; (2) this Court could appoint an attorney, to be paid by Plaintiff, to assist the Court to conform the complaint to this Court’s prior opinion; or (3) this Court could impose another remedy that conformed with the Appellate Division’s decision. Although Plaintiff contends that this Court was not permitted to require Plaintiff to retain a certified civil trial attorney, the Appellate Division actually would have the allowed the Court to choose Plaintiff's attorney for him. Instead, this Court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to select his own certified civil trial attorney to draft and execute the Complaint. The Court did not preclude counsel from representing plaintiff, it merely ordered the complaint to be refiled, pursuant to the instructions of the Appellate Division, so that the complaint would finally comport to an acceptable pleading on behalf of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion for recusal is also without merit. Plaintiff cites general law explaining when recusal is appropriate but does not present any argument as to why recusal is warranted or what the factual basis for recusal might be. A motion for recusal may be granted for any reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so. R. 1:12-1(f). The disposition of the motion is, at least in the first instance, entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose recusal is sought. Magill v. Casel, 238 N.J. Super. 57, 63 (App. Div. 1990). It is improper for a judge to withdraw from a case upon a mere suggestion that he is disqualified “unless the alleged cause of recusal is known by him to exist or is shown to be true in fact. Hundred East Credit Corp. v. Eric Schuster, 212 N.J. Super. 350, 358 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 107 N.J. 60 (1986). Lastly, before the court may be disqualified on the ground of an appearance of bias, the belief that the proceedings were unfair must be objectively reasonable. State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 (1997). BER L 007873-15 11/05/2020 Pg 6 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20201991304 Mere dissatisfaction with a Court’s prior ruling is not grounds for recusal. The Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is based merely on the erroneous subjective beliefs of counsel, and therefore must be denied. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.