On December 22, 2010, the Township of Union (Union County) agreed to pay $40,728 to an Irvington man who sued members of the Union Police Department for allegedly beating him.
In his suit, Michael David Evans of 1126 Stuyvesant Ave said that on May 30, 2007, he was walking down the street when he was ordered to stop by Union Police Officers David Pinto and Dan Roman. Evans claimed that during a pat down he "turned slightly toward [the officers] to ask why he was being arrested." He alleged that Pinto "punched [him] in the face, knocking [him] to the ground." Thereafter, he claimed that he was handcuffed and then "slammed several times" into a wall. He said that because he was handcuffed, he "could not brace himself against the impact and hit the wall with his face, breaking his nose, cutting his face open and denting the aluminum siding."
He claimed that his injuries were so bad that he required a hospital visit. Thereafter, he alleges, the Union County jail "would not accept him because he had been beaten so badly" resulting in him being held at "the Union police station lock-up for two or three days." Afterwards, he said he spent ten days in jail before a judge set his bail.
The case is captioned Evans v. Pinto, Federal Case No. 2:09-cv-02462 and Evans's attorney was Raoul Bustillo of Union City. Case documents are on-line here.
According to an arbitrator's letter, out of the $40,728, Evans received $15,000 and his lawyer received $20,000 in fees and $5,728 in costs.
None of Evans's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $40,728 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Union or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Union or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Evans $40,728 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Cherry Hill board pays $35,000 to settle teacher/student sex assault case
On May 16, 2011, a federal judge approved an agreement under which the Cherry Hill Board of Education (Camden County) would pay $35,000 to a then fourteen year-old school student at Rosa International Middle School who sued a teacher's aide for allegedly sexually assaulting her.
In her suit, the Plaintiff, identified by her initials, claimed that teacher's aide Jeffrey Powell "physically and sexually assault[ed]" her. She also claimed that school officials acted "with negligence, recklessness and indifference" to Powell's alleged sexual misconduct.
The case is captioned K.R. v. Jeffrey Powell, et al, Docket No. CAM-L-4005-10 and K.R.'s attorney was Louis G. Hasner of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. Also at this link is an Appellate Division decision concerning Powell's appeal of related criminal charges. Also, $35,000 settled the matter only against the school board. A private settlement may have been reached between Powell and the plaintiff.
None of K.R.'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Cherry Hill board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the Cherry Hill board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay K.R. $35,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
In her suit, the Plaintiff, identified by her initials, claimed that teacher's aide Jeffrey Powell "physically and sexually assault[ed]" her. She also claimed that school officials acted "with negligence, recklessness and indifference" to Powell's alleged sexual misconduct.
The case is captioned K.R. v. Jeffrey Powell, et al, Docket No. CAM-L-4005-10 and K.R.'s attorney was Louis G. Hasner of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. Also at this link is an Appellate Division decision concerning Powell's appeal of related criminal charges. Also, $35,000 settled the matter only against the school board. A private settlement may have been reached between Powell and the plaintiff.
None of K.R.'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Cherry Hill board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the Cherry Hill board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay K.R. $35,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Egg Harbor Township pays $650,000 to settle police officer's whistle blower suit
On May 28, 2009, the Township of Egg Harbor (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $650,000 to a Township police officer who sued the Egg Harbor Police Department for retaliating against him after he reported suspected cheating on a sergeant promotional exam.
In his suit, Christopher Mozitis said after he took the sergeant promotional exam in 2005, he was "shocked" to learn that five other officers who "were definitely not the best and the brightest" had achieved the top five test scores. He further claimed that he had hear rumors that some of the top scorers had boasted "that they had been given access to a surreptitiously made audiotape recording of the sergeant's promotional exam oral test portions by the Key Schools."
Mozitis said that he after reported his suspicions to Captain John Pope and Chief John Coyle a "half-hearted" investigation was done. However, Mozitis alleged, Chief Coyle promoted one of the top scorers to sergeant prior to the investigation's completion.
Mozitis also alleged that after the test scores were known, Chief Coyle and other supervisors evaluated the candidates and "then manipulated the ultimate promotional list rankings based upon non-objective factors." In sum, Mozitis claimed, "favoritism was allowed to trump merit."
Mozitis claimed that his complaints about the testing process resulted in "a grotesquely hostile and retaliatory work environment." He claimed, for example, that police union shop steward Ray Theriault threatened to "kick his ass" when Mozitis confronted Theriault for failing to pursue his grievance.
Also named in the suit was Egg Harbor Police Captain Matthew Coyle who is Chief Coyle's brother.
The case is captioned Mozitis v. Coyle, Docket No. ATL-L-1936-06 and Mozitis's attorney was Clifford Van Syoc of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here.
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause which, curiously, states that it is not a "confidentiality agreement" but limits the parties' statements about the settlement to "The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties." Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.
None of Mozitis's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $650,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Mozitis $650,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
In his suit, Christopher Mozitis said after he took the sergeant promotional exam in 2005, he was "shocked" to learn that five other officers who "were definitely not the best and the brightest" had achieved the top five test scores. He further claimed that he had hear rumors that some of the top scorers had boasted "that they had been given access to a surreptitiously made audiotape recording of the sergeant's promotional exam oral test portions by the Key Schools."
Mozitis said that he after reported his suspicions to Captain John Pope and Chief John Coyle a "half-hearted" investigation was done. However, Mozitis alleged, Chief Coyle promoted one of the top scorers to sergeant prior to the investigation's completion.
Mozitis also alleged that after the test scores were known, Chief Coyle and other supervisors evaluated the candidates and "then manipulated the ultimate promotional list rankings based upon non-objective factors." In sum, Mozitis claimed, "favoritism was allowed to trump merit."
Mozitis claimed that his complaints about the testing process resulted in "a grotesquely hostile and retaliatory work environment." He claimed, for example, that police union shop steward Ray Theriault threatened to "kick his ass" when Mozitis confronted Theriault for failing to pursue his grievance.
Also named in the suit was Egg Harbor Police Captain Matthew Coyle who is Chief Coyle's brother.
The case is captioned Mozitis v. Coyle, Docket No. ATL-L-1936-06 and Mozitis's attorney was Clifford Van Syoc of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here.
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause which, curiously, states that it is not a "confidentiality agreement" but limits the parties' statements about the settlement to "The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties." Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.
None of Mozitis's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $650,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Mozitis $650,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Egg Harbor Township pays $32,500 to settle police false arrest/intimidation suit
On November 17, 2008, the Township of Egg Harbor (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $32,500 to a man who sued members of the Egg Harbor Township Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause.
According to a June 8, 2008 federal court opinion, Pierre Reid, Sr. said that he was falsely arrested by Patrolmen Scott Nell, Michael Steinman, Christopher Mozitis, Anthony Venuto, William Reed and Jeffrey Lancaster and Lieutenant Larry Szapor on September 13, 2003. The arrest arose out of domestic violence charges brought against Reid by his former girlfriend Michelle Nieves. The second count of Reid's lawsuit alleges that Szapor, Steinman, Mozitis, Venuto, Reed and Lancaster hurled "racial slurs and profanity" at him and "maced him uncontrollably" in the face and genitals while again arresting him two days later on September 15, 2003.
The crux of Reid's complaints is that Patrolman Scott Nell was allegedly in a romantic relationship with Michelle Nieves and that Nell and Nieves conspired to falsely assert domestic violence charges against Reid. According to a footnote in the court decision, "Nell and Nieves became romantically involved and were married in December of 2004."
Also named as plaintiffs in the suit were Pierre Reid, Jr., Kristen Amber Reed and Victor Nelson. Also named as defendants were Michelle Nieves, Patrolman Michael Bordonaro and the Township of Egg Harbor.
The case is captioned Reid v. Nell, et al, Federal Case No. 1:05-cv-04885-RMB-JS and Reid's attorney was Ericka A. Appenzeller of Atlantic City. Case documents are on-line here.
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.
None of Reid's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $32,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Reid $32,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
According to a June 8, 2008 federal court opinion, Pierre Reid, Sr. said that he was falsely arrested by Patrolmen Scott Nell, Michael Steinman, Christopher Mozitis, Anthony Venuto, William Reed and Jeffrey Lancaster and Lieutenant Larry Szapor on September 13, 2003. The arrest arose out of domestic violence charges brought against Reid by his former girlfriend Michelle Nieves. The second count of Reid's lawsuit alleges that Szapor, Steinman, Mozitis, Venuto, Reed and Lancaster hurled "racial slurs and profanity" at him and "maced him uncontrollably" in the face and genitals while again arresting him two days later on September 15, 2003.
The crux of Reid's complaints is that Patrolman Scott Nell was allegedly in a romantic relationship with Michelle Nieves and that Nell and Nieves conspired to falsely assert domestic violence charges against Reid. According to a footnote in the court decision, "Nell and Nieves became romantically involved and were married in December of 2004."
Also named as plaintiffs in the suit were Pierre Reid, Jr., Kristen Amber Reed and Victor Nelson. Also named as defendants were Michelle Nieves, Patrolman Michael Bordonaro and the Township of Egg Harbor.
The case is captioned Reid v. Nell, et al, Federal Case No. 1:05-cv-04885-RMB-JS and Reid's attorney was Ericka A. Appenzeller of Atlantic City. Case documents are on-line here.
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.
None of Reid's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $32,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Reid $32,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Merchantville pays $11,000 to settle suit alleging illegal MV stop
On May 11, 2011, the Borough of Merchantville (Camden County) agreed to pay $11,000 to a Pennsauken man who sued members of the Merchantville Police Department for allegedly stopping his vehicle and arresting him for Driving While Intoxicated without probable cause.
In his suit, Alan Donia said that on September 23, 2007, he was stopped in Pennsauken by Merchantville Police Sergeant Jeffrey Brocious, Sergeant Michael Reilly and Officer Matthew Rull and arrested for drunk driving, refusing to submit to a breath test and careless driving. After being convicted in municipal court, Donia claimed that Superior Court Judge William J. Cook reversed his conviction, finding that "there was no probable cause for the police to stop Alan Donia's vehicle and arrest him."
The case is captioned Donia v. Merchantville, Superior Court Docket No. CAM-L-2623-09 and Donia's attorney was Kimberly Stuart Kluchnick of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here.
None of Donia's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $11,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Merchantville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Merchantville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Donia $11,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
In his suit, Alan Donia said that on September 23, 2007, he was stopped in Pennsauken by Merchantville Police Sergeant Jeffrey Brocious, Sergeant Michael Reilly and Officer Matthew Rull and arrested for drunk driving, refusing to submit to a breath test and careless driving. After being convicted in municipal court, Donia claimed that Superior Court Judge William J. Cook reversed his conviction, finding that "there was no probable cause for the police to stop Alan Donia's vehicle and arrest him."
The case is captioned Donia v. Merchantville, Superior Court Docket No. CAM-L-2623-09 and Donia's attorney was Kimberly Stuart Kluchnick of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here.
None of Donia's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $11,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Merchantville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Merchantville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Donia $11,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Bayonne pays $95,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit
On May 25, 2011, the City of Bayonne (Hudson County) agreed to pay $95,000 to two local men who sued members of the Bayonne Police Department for allegedly beating them and arresting them without probable cause.
In their suit, Michael Condo and Craig S. DeRocco said that they were assaulted by police as they left Fratelli's Bar on Broadway, Bayonne on March 18, 2007. Specifically, Condo said that Bayonne Police Detective David Macre beat, kicked and threw him to the ground while cursing at him. DeRocco claimed that Officer Dominick Lillo tackled him and punched him "numerous times in the face and head." DeRocco also claimed that Lillo kicked DeRocco's sister when she asked him to stop beating her brother. The men also accused Detectives William Peterson and Timothy Carey as well as Sergeant Timothy McAuliffe of "assaulting other individuals" who were in the area.
Both men claimed that they were taken to Bayonne Hospital's Emergency room while handcuffed and then taken back to the police department where they were "booked, searched and detained." Both men said that they were charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest but that all charges were administratively dismissed by the Hudson County Prosecutor on December 3, 2007.
The case is captioned Condo and DeRocco v. City of Bayonne, Federal Case No. 2:09-cv-01215 and the men were represented by Ida Cambria of New Brunswick. Case documents are on-line here.
None of the men's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $95,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Bayonne or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Bayonne or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the men $95,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
In their suit, Michael Condo and Craig S. DeRocco said that they were assaulted by police as they left Fratelli's Bar on Broadway, Bayonne on March 18, 2007. Specifically, Condo said that Bayonne Police Detective David Macre beat, kicked and threw him to the ground while cursing at him. DeRocco claimed that Officer Dominick Lillo tackled him and punched him "numerous times in the face and head." DeRocco also claimed that Lillo kicked DeRocco's sister when she asked him to stop beating her brother. The men also accused Detectives William Peterson and Timothy Carey as well as Sergeant Timothy McAuliffe of "assaulting other individuals" who were in the area.
Both men claimed that they were taken to Bayonne Hospital's Emergency room while handcuffed and then taken back to the police department where they were "booked, searched and detained." Both men said that they were charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest but that all charges were administratively dismissed by the Hudson County Prosecutor on December 3, 2007.
The case is captioned Condo and DeRocco v. City of Bayonne, Federal Case No. 2:09-cv-01215 and the men were represented by Ida Cambria of New Brunswick. Case documents are on-line here.
None of the men's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $95,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Bayonne or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Bayonne or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the men $95,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Elizabeth Board pays $205,000 to settle employee age discrimination suit
On January 26, 2011, the Elizabeth Board of Education (Union County) agreed to pay $205,000 to worker in its technology department who sued the Board for allegedly firing him because of his age.
In his suit, Carmen Fortunato of Belleville, claims that he showed up to work on June 26, 2006, he discovered that he had been locked out of the Board's computer system. He subsequently learned that he had been terminated "as a consequence of performance, attendance, credentials and/or budgetary reasons." He claimed that those reasons were pretextual and that the real reason for firing him was his age.
The case is captioned Fortunato v. Elizabeth Board of Education, Docket No. UNN-L-2500-07 and Fortunato's attorney was Thomas R. Basta of Warren. Case documents are on-line here.
None of Fortunato's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $205,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the school board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the school board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Fortunato $205,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
In his suit, Carmen Fortunato of Belleville, claims that he showed up to work on June 26, 2006, he discovered that he had been locked out of the Board's computer system. He subsequently learned that he had been terminated "as a consequence of performance, attendance, credentials and/or budgetary reasons." He claimed that those reasons were pretextual and that the real reason for firing him was his age.
The case is captioned Fortunato v. Elizabeth Board of Education, Docket No. UNN-L-2500-07 and Fortunato's attorney was Thomas R. Basta of Warren. Case documents are on-line here.
None of Fortunato's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $205,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the school board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the school board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Fortunato $205,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
