NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3279-15T2
A-3431-15T2
MARK HYMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YELENA MELNICHENKO,
VITALY MELNICHENKO,
NATALIA KOLYADA,
and JAMES BRENNENSTUHL,
Defendants,
and
BOROUGH OF LONGPORT,
Defendant-Respondent.
MARK HYMAN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
YELENA MELNICHENKO,
VITALY MELNICHENKO,
NATALIA KOLYADA,
and JAMES BRENNENSTUHL,
Defendants,
and
BOROUGH OF LONGPORT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted June 7, 2017 – Decided July 5, 2017
Before Judges Carroll and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket
No. L-1603-14.
My Rights Lawyers, LLC, attorneys for
appellant in A-3279-15 and respondent in
A-3431-15 (Michelle J. Douglass, on the
briefs).
Barker, Gelfand & James, attorneys for
respondent in A-3279-15 and appellant in
A-3431-15 (A. Michael Barker, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
These two appeals, calendared back-to-back and consolidated
for purposes of this opinion, arise out of a complaint filed by
plaintiff Mark Hyman against defendant Borough of Longport
alleging, among other things, a violation of the New Jersey Civil
Rights Act (NJCRA), N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2. Plaintiff appeals from
the summary judgment dismissal of his NJCRA claim, while Longport
appeals from an order denying its application for fees and costs
pursuant to the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1,
and the NJCRA. For the reasons that follow, we affirm both orders.
2 A-3279-15T2
I.
We need not recite in detail the factual background and
procedural history of this matter, which are well known to the
parties. Briefly summarizing, plaintiff is a resident of Longport
who was a frequent caller to a local political radio talk show,
on which he would often criticize Longport's government and voice
his belief that Longport Police Department (LPD) officers abused
their positions. On April 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint
against Longport and others, alleging a violation of the NJCRA. 1
Specifically, plaintiff claimed that, from 2008 to 2013, Longport
police and municipal government officials harassed him in
retaliation for his constitutionally protected speech on the radio
program.
In his certified answers to interrogatories and sworn
deposition testimony, plaintiff alleged that the LPD conducted an
inadequate investigation and stonewalled his efforts to recover
property that was stolen from him when his home was burglarized
in February 2009. Other forms of alleged harassment by Longport
officials included: (1) telling plaintiff to stay off the radio
1
Plaintiff's complaint against Longport also included counts for
tortious interference with contract; negligence; breach of
contract; and violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 to -6.2. On
November 12, 2014, the trial court granted Longport's motion to
dismiss those counts. Plaintiff does not appeal those dismissals.
3 A-3279-15T2
and taunting him; (2) issuing him unwarranted tickets; (3) reducing
business opportunities for plaintiff and his daughter; and (4)
insulting plaintiff about his wife's ethnicity and insinuating
their relationship was not genuine.
During discovery, plaintiff amended his interrogatory answers
to identify William Hewitt, a retired LPD lieutenant, as a witness
having knowledge of facts supporting his retaliation claims. On
July 1, 2015, plaintiff noticed Hewitt's deposition for September
10, 2015, but withdrew the deposition notice on September 9. The
next day, Jim Brennenstuhl, a private detective who plaintiff had
previously hired to investigate his home burglary,2 took a sworn
recorded statement from Hewitt. Hewitt stated that the Longport
police officer assigned to the burglary investigation "did
everything he could possibly do" and that the LPD "went far beyond
what they would do for anyone else, and they did stuff for
[plaintiff] just to avoid any problems with [plaintiff]." In the
end, the investigation spanned some eighteen months and was closed
because the LPD lacked sufficient evidence to support a criminal
prosecution. Hewitt further stated he was unaware of "anyone
telling anyone not to investigate" the burglary, and nothing in
2
Although not completely clear from the record, it appears that
at some point Brennenstuhl was also hired as an outside agent by
the LPD.
4 A-3279-15T2
his experience suggested that the LPD or any of its representatives
retaliated against defendant because of his radio appearances.
On October 20, 2015, Longport's counsel served plaintiff's
counsel with a frivolous litigation notice (FLN). The FLN stated
that, given Hewitt's sworn testimony, it was apparent that
plaintiff lacked sufficient competent evidence to support his
claims against Longport. The FLN demanded that plaintiff withdraw
his complaint within twenty-eight days, failing which Longport
would seek frivolous litigation sanctions or an award of counsel
fees and costs as a "prevailing party" pursuant to N.J.S.A.
10:6-2(f).
Plaintiff did not withdraw the lawsuit and Longport moved for
summary judgment following the close of discovery. Presented with
the above evidence and the LPD investigation reports pertaining
to the burglary, Judge Noah Bronkesh granted summary judgment in
favor of Longport on January 19, 2016. In his written opinion,
the judge reasoned:
This [c]ourt finds that there are no
genuine issues of material fact when the facts
are viewed in the light most favorable to the
non—moving party. The record establishes that
the investigation into [p]laintiff's alleged
burglary was proper, thorough and
adequate. . . . All leads were pursued and
while suspects were found, there was not
enough evidence to warrant the filing of
criminal charges. The record shows the
thorough effort made by the investigating
5 A-3279-15T2
officer in pursuing leads in the alleged
burglary. Additionally, even if [p]laintiff
could show that the investigation was
inadequate, [] [p]laintiff has not shown that
the inadequate investigation[] was due to the
criticisms voiced on the radio talk show.
["]In order to establish a First
Amendment claim, a [p]laintiff must prove (1)
that he was engaged in a constitutionally
protected activity; (2) that the government
responded with retaliation[;] and (3) that the
protected activity caused the retaliation."
Muhammad v. Abington Twp. Police Dep't, 37 F.
Supp.3d 746, 760 (E.D. Pa. 2014), citing
George v. Rehiel, 738 F.3d 562, 585 (3d Cir.
2013). Plaintiff cannot show that he was
retaliated against by an inadequate
investigation because the investigation was
proper and in compliance with [LPD] policies
and procedures. Contrary to [] [p]laintiff's
argument, the competent evidence on the
records shows that the police properly
investigat[ed] the alleged burglary. Among
other listed procedures, the investigation
included having police check the property to
make sure the perpetrator was not still on the
premises, securing the scene to protect
evidence, interviewing the victim and any
witnesses, dusting the scene for fingerprints,
check[ing] with neighbors and surrounding
residents for additional potential witnesses,
documenting the actions, and taking whatever
other actions officers deem necessary for the
successful arrest and prosecution of the
perpetrator. . . . The steps taken by the
police are set forth in further detail in the
police records and demonstrate that an
adequate investigation was made. Moreover,
"there is no statutory or common law right,
much less a constitutional right, to an
investigation." Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d
374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007). As such,
[p]laintiff has not produced sufficient
evidence of retaliatory conduct in the
6 A-3279-15T2
burglary investigation. Furthermore,
[p]laintiff has not produce[d] adequate
evidence to support his assertions of other
instances of retaliation, and he has not set
forth sufficient evidence that any inadequacy
in the burglary investigation was due to
statements [p]laintiff made on the radio show.
Finally, [p]laintiff's NJCRA claim fails
because [p]laintiff cannot establish that he
suffered any underlying constitutional
violation by any Longport employee or agent,
or that Longport maintained a custom or policy
of retaliating against citizens for exercising
their right to free speech.
On February 4, 2016, Longport filed an application for fees
and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(f).
On March 4, 2016, Judge Bronkesh denied the motion, finding there
was insufficient evidence that plaintiff asserted the claim in bad
faith or solely for the purpose of harassment, or that the action
was unreasonable or without foundation. These appeals followed.
II.
In his appeal, plaintiff challenges the grant of summary
judgment relief. He argues that the trial court erred in finding
the proofs were insufficient to establish: retaliatory harassment
by the LPD; a causal connection between the alleged harassment and
plaintiff's constitutionally protected activity; and a custom or
policy of retaliation against citizens for exercising their free
speech rights. We disagree.
7 A-3279-15T2
"[W]e review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de
novo under the same standard as the trial court." Templo Fuente
De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189, 199
(2016) (citation omitted). Thus, we consider, as the trial court
did, "whether the competent evidential materials presented, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are
sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged
disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." Davis v.
Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 406 (2014) (quoting
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)).
If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must then "decide
whether the trial court correctly interpreted the law." DepoLink
Court Reporting & Litig. Support Servs. v. Rochman, 430 N.J. Super.
325, 333 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Massachi v. AHL Servs., Inc.,
396 N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007), certif. denied, 195
N.J. 419 (2008)). We review issues of law de novo and accord no
deference to the trial judge's conclusions on issues of law.
Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013).
"Although we are mindful that, when reviewing summary
judgment motions, we must view the 'evidential materials . . . in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party,' conclusory and
self-serving assertions by one of the parties are insufficient to
overcome the motion[.]" Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 440-41
8 A-3279-15T2
(2005) (citations omitted). A party's "[b]are conclusory
assertions, without factual support in the record, will not defeat
a meritorious application for summary judgment." Horizon Blue
Cross Blue Shield of N.J. v. State, 425 N.J. Super. 1, 32 (App.
Div.) (citing Brae Asset Fund, L.P. v. Newman, 327 N.J. Super.
129, 134 (App. Div. 1999)), certif. denied, 211 N.J. 608 (2012).
Thus, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no
genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 211
(1986). What is required of the party opposing summary judgment
is affirmative evidence that is competent, credible, and shows
that there is a genuine issue for trial. "Competent opposition
requires competent evidential material beyond mere speculation and
fanciful arguments." Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589, 605
(App. Div. 2014) (quoting Hoffman v. Asseenontv.Com, Inc., 404
N.J. Super. 415, 425-26 (App. Div. 2009)), certif. denied, 220
N.J. 269 (2015).
Guided by these principles, we conclude that summary judgment
was properly granted. Certainly, we recognize that
"constitutionally protected interests 'emanate from every person's
right to be insulated from governmental retaliation for expressive
9 A-3279-15T2
exercises or beliefs protected by the First Amendment.'" Lapolla
v. Cty. of Union, ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2017) (slip
op. at 13) (citing Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Whitman, 335 N.J.
Super. 283, 289 (App. Div. 2000)). Nonetheless, in the present
case, the LPD's reports clearly demonstrate the extensive and
prolonged investigation into the burglary of plaintiff's home.
That no one was ultimately arrested or prosecuted for the crime
does not establish a NJCRA violation. Moreover, plaintiff's own
witness, Hewitt, expressly contradicted his claim that he was
retaliated against for exercising his free speech rights. Aside
from plaintiff's mere speculation, the record simply lacks
sufficient factual support for his contention that he was
retaliated against in violation of the NJCRA, or that Longport had
a custom or policy of engaging in such retaliation.
III.
We now turn to Longport's appeal from the order denying its
request for counsel fees and costs.
A trial court's determinations on the
availability and amount of fees and costs for
frivolous litigation are reviewable for "abuse
of discretion." [Masone v. Levine, 382 N.J.
Super. 181, 193 (App. Div. 2005).] Reversal
is warranted when "the discretionary act was
not premised upon consideration of all
relevant factors, was based upon consideration
of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or
amounts to a clear error in judgment." Ibid.
10 A-3279-15T2
[Ferolito v. Park Hill Ass'n, Inc., 408 N.J.
Super. 401, 407 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
200 N.J. 502 (2009).]
Pursuant to the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A.
2A:15-59.1(b), in order for a complaint from the non-prevailing
party to be deemed frivolous, the judge must find evidence that
the complaint
(1) . . . was commenced, used or continued in
bad faith, solely for the purpose of
harassment, delay or malicious injury; or
(2) The nonprevailing party knew, or should
have known, that the complaint . . . was
without any reasonable basis in law or equity
and could not be supported by a good faith
argument for an extension, modification or
reversal of existing law.
The dismissal of a claim in favor of a defendant is not per
se evidence that a plaintiff pursued his or her claim in bad faith.
Id. at 408. The party seeking fees resulting from frivolous
litigation bears the burden of showing the non-prevailing party
acted in bad faith. Ibid.
Moreover, the frivolous litigation statute must be
interpreted strictly. DeBrango v. Summit Bancorp, 328 N.J. Super.
219, 226 (App. Div. 2000). Sanctions should be awarded only in
exceptional cases, not for every litigation infraction. Iannone
v. McHale, 245 N.J. Super. 17, 28 (App. Div. 1990). "When the
[non-prevailing party's] conduct bespeaks an honest attempt to
11 A-3279-15T2
press a perceived, though ill-founded and perhaps misguided,
claim, he or she should not be found to have acted in bad faith."
Belfer v. Merling, 322 N.J. Super. 124, 144-45 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 162 N.J. 196 (1999) (citation omitted).
Alternatively, Longport asserts its claim for attorney's fees
pursuant to the NJCRA, which provides that "the court may award
the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs."
N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(f). As Longport candidly points out, the NJCRA
was modeled after 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a distinction
between the standard for awarding fees to a prevailing defendant
as opposed to a prevailing plaintiff. See Rezem Family Assocs.,
LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103, 115 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 208 N.J. 366 (2011) (stating that the NJCRA was
modeled after 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Under the first scenario, a
prevailing defendant cannot receive attorney's fees "unless a
court finds that [the plaintiff's] claim was frivolous,
unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to
litigate after it clearly became so." Christiansburg Garment Co.
v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412, 422, 98 S.
Ct. 694, 701, 54 L. Ed. 2d 648, 657 (1978).
Having reviewed the arguments raised by Longport in light of
the record on appeal and applicable law, we conclude that the
judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Longport's
12 A-3279-15T2
application for attorney's fees and costs. We find no basis to
disturb the judge's findings that plaintiff, although angry, felt
justified in persisting with his claim against Longport, and he
"clearly articulated reasons for his claims, albeit without
sufficient evidence to ultimately prevail." That the trial court
ultimately dismissed plaintiff's complaint, without more, did not
establish that he acted in bad faith so as to necessitate an award
of attorney's fees for frivolous litigation. See Ferolito, supra,
408 N.J. Super. at 408.
Affirmed.
13 A-3279-15T2
MARK HYMAN VS. YELENA MELNICHENKO (L-1603-14, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)
Combined Opinion