llflEuz?ZE?ll? 9?35?98?36 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT PAGE 62.328 Louie M. Barbone, Esquire Attorney ID 014891986) JACOBS BARBONE, RA, RECEIVED a FILED A Professional Corporation Attorneys at Law FEB 5 2014 1125 Pacific Avenue Atlantic City, N.J. 08401 i Sussex County LAW DMBIOH (609) 3484125 2 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL R. FARRUGGIO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW CIVIL PART Plaintiff .: SUSSEX COUNTY . v. DOCKETNO. 63?74 THE BDROUGH OF HAMBURG, . Civil Action Defendant. 5 JURY DEMAND AND DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Daniel R. Farruggio, fesiding at 16 Dylan Drive, Sparta, Sussex County, New Jersey. and complaining against the defendant, states as follows: i CDUNT ONE (Violations of the Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 e_t.seg.) 5 1. Daniel R. was appointed as a permanent member of the Borough of Hamburg Polio; Department in November of 2010. Plaintiff served in the capacity of a patrol of?cer his constructive discharge by way of resignation on May 28, 2013. Plaintiff?s termination from the Hamburg Borough Police Department was in direct violation of the New .gereey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, and plaintiff seeks legal and equitable ??in pursuant to N..J.S.A. 34:19-5 by way of this complaint. 2. Daniel R. Fai?uggio was raised and educated in Sparta, New Jersey, graduating from Sparta Hig . School in June 2004. Plaintiff earned his degree in criminal 113167? 281? 15: 86 9735796735. SUSSEX CIVIL COURT 33328 justice in December 2008 wn? mmeww_ tom the Sussex County Community Coiiege maintaining a grade point Average of 3. 7 Plaintiff was in pursuit of his dream to be a police of?cer .W having volunteered for inte nships throughout college at the Hamburg Borough Police Department and the North? State Prison. By August of 2009 plaintiff had successfully completed the Passaic ty Police Academy with distinction as to his class rank and by being voted president of his class by his candidate peers. Plaintiff proudly attained his goal when appointed a full time municipal police of?cer in the Borough of Hamburg i on November 1, 2010. l: 3. Upon plaintiff?E. appointment as a police of?cer in November of 201 0, Chief Jan Wright was in command of the police department. The Chief knew the plaintiff from i. ii both his internship as well 3 through his association with members of the Hamburg Department. it was Chief 'r'right that interviewed the plaintiff for employment and had an extensive dossier on thEa plaintiffs entire life history. Beyond the personal contact with the plaintiff Farroggio [disclosed and discussed all of the positives and negatives occurring throughout his adglescent and young adult lifetime directly with the Chief and thereafter fully documentecg all of the same in his employment application with the Hamburg Borough Police limpet-intent on August 29, 2009. Plaintiff was fortunate to have the personal attention. advice and tutelage of a respected career law enforcement of?cer such as Chief Wright; 4. Plaintiff commienced his law enforcement career with the same type of youthful and idealistic. vigrir and industriousness recognized during his internship. Plaintiff performed the job inf patrol of?cer with loyalty and fidelity, taking his oath of of?ce to heart and remaining true to the ideal of equal and fair enforcement of the law. llflEur'ZBl? 15:88 -. SUSSEX CIVIL COURT EMKEB i. i 5. From the of his employment, plaintiff came to learn and live with the highly unorthodox com?nand style of Sgt. David McNulty. Even under Chief Wright, McNulty was one of the net level supervisors in the Department. As such, plaintiff was subjected to his crude andlinsolting demeanor with disturbing regularity. Sgt. McNulty would, in a playful yet de Eeaning authoritative manner, consistently smack plaintiff in the back of the head, call him a ?faggot? or ?homo?, or even ?numb nuts?, and then challenge the plaintiff by as ing "what are y0u going to do about it? you want to hit me don?t you??. Plaintiff, havi-?g virtually grown up in the department, knew all about McNulty?s caveman-like d. position and demeanor, and considered it part of the department's hazing proc Ess. While physically tolerating the abuse. plaintiff would conspicuously evidence hitidisdain of the treatment and the much larger concern that any law enforcement supelisor would conduct his command like a fraternity initiation. When plaintiff?s direct verb objections failed with McNulty, he composed an email to McNuity detailing the serge. ,nt's absolute violation of just about every departmental rule, regulation and policy on workplace and civility standards. The email enraged Sgt. MoNulty given the fact that hief Wright had access to all emails on the police system. Sgt. McNulty made sure 0 direct reprimand of the plaintiff that he never was to place such an email on the syste again. Plaintiff on the other hand, continued to perform the job as patrol of?cer with on ?inued loyalty to his oath. 6. Following an proximate four months of Service, the Circumstances of the workplace changed signifin ntly. Chief Wright retired, Sgt. David McNuity became a command of?cer and the It commander of the department as of August of 2012, and Wayne Yahm became the ivilian director of the police department in March of 2012. 11515321231? 15: BE 9?35??3873El SUSSEX CIVIL CEILIRT i t: That change in command: structure, had a direct and devastating impact upon the plaintiffs tenure at the He 3 urg Police Department. 7. By Farruggio came to realize that Sgt. McNolty, now in combination with civilian difeotor Wayne Yahm, harbored a much larger agenda as the official in command of th a police department, than merely his ?unorthodox? style of command. When McNulty realized that the plaintiff, while continuing to tolerate his antics, would not succu ?b and simply do as McNulty ordered with regard to fundamental breaches of iaw, policy, rule and regulation, and outright violation of departmental published polity, plaintiff became marked fortennination. 8. In performing; his duties as a patrol officer, plaintiff would faithfully administer and enforce the; law regardless of the circumstances or the perpetrators. Plaintiff would respectfullyj?although routinely, object to and refuse to participate in policies and practices of his iemponer and supervisors, such as Mchlulty and Yahrn, that he reasonably knew and believed were illegal, in violation of rule and regulation promulgated pursuant to law, and in violation of New Jersey public policy. Notwithstanding the physics _l and verbal intimidating conduct of his supervisors, plaintiff Farruggio simply refused to go along in order to get along. Plaintiff?s conscientious reports involved everythingilfrorn ticket fixing, patent violation of the police contract by his supervisors, to direct re of illegal conduct by the civilian police director. 9. Sgt. McNulty'; would review each and every summons, report and memoranda drafted by Faruggio. The sergeant would on occasions too numerous to mention, order and direct at the plaintiff change material facts set forth in his reports for no other reason than to lsify and misrepresent the truth to plaintiff's reports in order i 113153281? 15:33 9?35?98?35? SUSSEH CIVIL COURT PAGE 85528 i to bene?t speci?c defend Its or law violators, or to assure that certain facts were not disclosed in plaintiffs ports to conceal inappropriate and illegal conduct of departmental supervisors. one such occasion, piaintiff wrote a parking ticket to an individual clearly deservin . Sgt. McNulty found out the identity of the violator, and told the plaintiff that he was re ired to dismiss the summons because that individual was a relative of a corrections off%:er who lived in the community. Sgt. McNulty, believing that his ?conditioning" of the plaintiff would require nothing more than an oral directive, was met with plaintiff?s obstinat refusal. That resulted in McNulty enlisting Yahm?s authority and returning to the plaint? with an ultimatum, to either dismiss the parking ticket or pay it himself. When plaintiff aigain refused, McNulty became enraged, explaining to the plaintiff that tickets simply re not written to "fellow law enforcement of?cers?. Stunned by plaintiffs reverence to dE1tv, MoNulty gave up and ultimateiy paid the ticket himself, or in combination with Yahr-E. At least, that's what McNuity told the plaintiff. to. Plaintiff likew?e reported specific violations of the law to Sgt. McNulty that he personally observed beii committed by civilian director Yahm. At various times and on multiple topics, plaintiff onsistentlv reported the fact that the civilian director was assuming authority and unertaking control of law enforcement duties from which he was prohibited. Yahm woui? routinely review police investigative reports, requiring that corrections be made or fee changed, by directing McNultv to have plaintiff and others revise their reports. Plaint observed Yahm operating a marked patrol car of the Borough, knowing that poli_:ies and orders were in effect prohibiting civilian members from any operation of mark-.d vehicles for a variety of reasons, including the Borough' exposure to civil liability claEms. Yahm would likewise review sensitive and con?dential i. i 5 lli?lEs?E?il? 15:88 . SUSSEX CIVIL COURT raw? police documents commits: exclusively by Attorney General guidelines for action only by appointed internal 15E airs of?cers. Specifically, Internal Affairs confidential documents, along with medical and reports of particular police officers. McNulty not only gave Yal??-n password access to the police computer to allow Yahm's consistent review and comfction of the of?cial police reports, he also allowed Yahm to use his computer while he i-?Eras already logged on to the system at Yahm?s pleasure. 11. Plaintiff Fangio made direct and personal reports to Sgt. McNulty objecting, refusing to parti?ipate in, and reporting that plethora of illegal conduct, on multiple occasions. i - 12. As a direct ai?d proximate result of plaintiff?s conscientious reports, both McNulty and Yahm com posed and executed a multifaceted punishment regimen against the plaintiff. All of iti as impliedly and expressly, to make the plaintiff?s life as a patrol of?cer so miserable ?hat he would not only quit the department, but based on McNulty?s fabricated recogd of discipline, he would never be employed in law enforcement again. That, a ording to McNulty, would be the plaintiff's destiny. 13. On February if, 2013, plaintiff was called into the of?ce of Director Yahm and suspended from his ssition. Plaintiff was told that he had falsified a gun permit application and that an Inte: al Affairs complaint was filed against him. Further, that the matter was going to be orig inally investigated and his choice was either to resign or face termination and crim. al prosecution. When plaintiff refused to resign, the IA complaint served on the aintiff claimed that plaintiff had falsi?ed a public record, namely his employment a lication with the Hamburg Borough Police Department in 2009. Ultimately, plaintiff signed his position via letter of counsel on May 28, 2013, llf'lEu?E?l? 15:58 9?35?98?35 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT BBKZEI under circumstances when . .- any reasonable police officer, subjected to the pattern and practice of retaliation store ascribed, would have done the same. 14. Even in the urse of the alleged Internal Affairs investigation. McNulty sewed as Yahm?s puppei?. On the day of plaintiff?s Internal Affairs? interview, the encounter was not only :deotaped, it was broadcast on a television monitor in a common area of the police I apartment so that director Yahm could watch and listen as McNulty attempted to execcte Yahm?s script of questions. Both McNulty and Yahm had by that time suf?ciently leified the true facts of plaintiff?s employment and gun application permit sufficient with the Sussex County Prosecutor?s Of?ce to secure the investigative attention of th First Assistant. 15. Both McNulty'P?end Yahm knew the complete history and truth regarding plaintiff?s initial application zinc! personal history when he applied to the Hamburg Police Department. In the (tours1 of his over thirty-page employment application, plaintiff disclosed every relevantf regarding his background. Specifically, the fact that on June 18, 2004 he pled to a disorderly person's theft offense in the Sparta Municipal Court while perfo ing his high school job at the Sparta Athletic Club. Plaintiff likewise disclosed the fact at at sixteen, he experienced ?anxiety? and was treated by mental health professional?lthen and thereafter with the ultimate result of being fully fit for police duty as of the fill of his application. Beyond written disclosure. plaintiff gave his complete history to to Chief Wright and both McNulty and Yahm knew all about it by the time plaintiff c?nmenced employment in November of 2010. Plaintiff?s supervisors not only knew (lit those facts but they also knew of the advice and direction llf18f2E11? 15:32! SUSSEX CIVIL COURT PAGE 89.428 that Chief Wright had give; the plaintiff with regard to those issues in executing ?rearm permit applications in conjuitotion with his job as a police officer. 16. Notwithstandis'ig full knowledge of the truth regarding plaintiffs past history, his compietion of ripplioation and his filing of three firearm purchase permits, McNulty and Yahrn decideEl that those very events would form the pretext for both lA and criminal investigation it order to accomplish McNulty?s promise: plaintiff?s life would be so miserable that he wo" id quit the department and never again be employed in law enforcement. I Plaintiff Danie?il Farmggio was at all times relevant hereto an employee pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:1iil?2b. Sgt. McNulty and Director Yahm were at all times relevant hereto either the meloyer or supervisor of the plaintiff pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:19?2a and b. Defendant Borough of Hamburg did by and through plaintiffs supervisors, and as the ei?nployer of the piaintiff, perpetrate a relentless course of adverse and retaliatory employment action based solely upon the plaintiffs consistent and conscientious reports it illegality. Plaintiff has been proximately caused to suffer loss of employment, destination of his personal and professional reputation and Character, impairment as to?his employability in law enforcement and has been caused to suffer compensatory arid consequential damages, along with pain and suffering, humiliation and other dama?ies. WHEREFORE, plaingff demands judgment against defendant as follows: a. damages; b. Consequentiaiz damages; 0. Punitive darn+es pursuant llr?lEur'Q?l? 15:88 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT PAGE 18.323 cl Attorneys? feet. costs and interest pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:19-5e; e. A civil ?ne pa able to the General Fund for each CEPA violation, at the statutorilgkg prescribed maximum of $20,000 per subsequent violation pure rant to N.J.S.A. 34:19-5; e. lnjunctive a I: equitable relief mandating reemployment and benefits pure nt to N.J.S.A. 34:19-5a-d; and, f. Any other reli the Court deems equitable and just. i. 2 hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge. information and RULE 4:5?1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 4:5-1. better?, the matter in controv ray is not the subject of any other action pending in any Court or arbitration proceedings, an inc other action is contemplated. I know of no other parties that should be joined herein. CERTI OF COMPLIANCE WITH R. I certify the Con?den :Ial Personal Identi?ers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the Court, and ill be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with 1238??(t JURY PURSUANT TO R. 1:8?1tb) and R. 4:35-1 Plaintiff Daniel R. Ferguggio hereby requests trial byjury as to all issues herein. NOTICELEDF DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Plaintiff Daniel R. Fatafruggio hereby designates Louis M. Bar-bone, Esquire as trial counsel in the within matter: JACDBS 8: BARBONE, PA. :1 By: Louis M. Barbone Dated: arena; 5 13.115.329.11? 15:68 ?3?35?98?35 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT PAGE 112?28 ACNE i i i 3 Film John M. Bowens. Esq. SCHENCK, PRICE, SMITF. KING LLP - as i FEM 220 Park Avenue, 13.0. Box 991 - . Florham Park, New Jersey 073932-0991 (973) 5394000 Attorneys for Defendant, ThelBernugh of Hamburg DANIEL R. FARRUGGIO, COURT OF new JERSEY LAW DIVISION: SUSSEX COUNTY Plaintiff, . DOCKET NO: v. Civil Action THE BOROUGH OF HAMBELIRG SEPARATE i: JURY Defendants. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL. i 2 TD RULE 4:54 Defendant, The 130ng of Hamburg ("Defendant?) by way of answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff, says: E- COUNT ONE 1. Defendant adzIEits that Plaintiff was appointed to the Borough Police Department and denies the remaining allegiEation of this paragraph. 2. Since this parzEgraph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to relief. the Defendant can neither admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to r' his proofs. 1 r. 3. Since this par Egraph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to relief. the Defendant can neither admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to his proofs. [Quentin nocxu 113155281? 15:85 4. Since this par relief, the Defendant can neii his proofs. 5. Since this par: relief. the Defendant can nei?: his proofs. 5. Since this para relief the Defendant can neit his proofs. 7. Since this part! a igraph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to SUSSEX CIVIL CDURT iher admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to igraph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to i. her admit .. nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to i. igraph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to her admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to a i graph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to relief. the Defendant can neitfner admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to his proofs. S. relief, the Defendant can neit his proofs. 9. relief, the Defendant can neitl his proofs. if}. relief, the Defendant can neit-l his proofs. ll. leaves Plaintiff to his proofs. [0 J94704DOCXH i Since this par; Sinee this para i Since this pare The Defendant aph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to ier admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to igraph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to ier admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to igraph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to ier admit nor deny the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to icon neither admit nor deny the allegations of this paragraph and . 12f28 113?153?281? 15:88 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT 133?28 12. The Defendan? can neither admit not deny the allegations of this paragraph and leaves Plaintiff to his proofs. 13. The Defendan-gadmits that the Plaintiff resigned from the police force and denies it was a remit of retaliation. 14. Since this par aph does not set forth a statement of facts entitling Plaintiff to a l. relief. the Defendant can neither admit nor den}r the allegations set forth and leaves Plaintiff to L. 5 his proofs. 15. The Defendan?iean neither admit nor deny the allegations of this paragraph and leaves Plaintiff to his proofs. 16. The can neither admit nor deny the allegations of this paragraph and leaves Plaintiff to his proofs. 17. The Defendant denies taking any retaliatory action. against Plaintiff and can neither admit nor deny the ritmaunng allegations of tins paragraph and. leaves to . proofs. WHEREFORE, Defeitdant, The Borough of Hamburg denies that plaintiff is entitled to any judgment against them aihd instead demands that plaintiff?s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. I: SEPARATE DEFENSES 1?14 nan 1. The Complaint ails to state a. claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. The Complaint barred by lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. 3. The Complaintijis barred by lack of jurisdiction over the person. 4. The Complaintiis barred by virtue of the Doctrine of Estoppel, Doctrine of Lashes and Doctrine of Waiver. [0!394?104 ll llflEix'ZEJl? 15:58 9?35?98?35 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT 14.323 i 5. The Complain;E is barred by virtue of the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. 6. The plaintiffs .hlaim is barred by virtue of the Entire Controversy Doctrine. 7. The is barred by the provisions of the applicable Statute of Limitations. 8. The Complaini; is barred by virtue of the Doctrine of Res .ludicata. 9. The Complainii is barred by virtue of the failure to mitigate damages. 10. The defendant; violated no duty due and owing to the plaintiff. 11. Plaintiff lacke?g proper legal standing to institute this law suit against this i defendant. 12- Plaintiff is guilty of comparative negligence which negligence is greater than that of defendant, and plaintiff is 1 erefore barred from recovery. 13. The defendani .i deny that they are guilty of any negligence which was the proximate or producing cause; of any injuries, losses or damages alleged to have been sustained l? by the plaintiff. l-j l4. Insofar as plailtti?" purports to allege a. claim or claims for negligence or for physical or mental and emoti: nal, such claims are barred by the appropriate provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. 15. The defendant. are entitled to any immunity, exemption and limitation provided in NJSA. 59:8-1 g; And Errors commonly known as the New Jersey Tort Claims Act as well as every common law immunity, and as a result is not liable to the plaintiff. 16. At all times rrilevant to this matter, this defendant acted in good faith and in regulations and standards. accordance with applicable {Ollu'c'??l 113163281? 15:38 SUSSEX CIVIL CULJRT 15.328 37. There was a 14%itimate nondiscriminatory reason for every investigative or other action taken with respect to dig: plaintiff. 18. The plaintiff I led to exhaust his administrative remedies. 19. The defendan: reserve the right to supplement and amend this answer by asserting such defenses as fu' er investigation reveals to be necessaryr and appropriate and the damages alleged by plaintiff I not the proximate cause or foreseeable consequence of any act or emission by these defenda . s. DAMAND FOR DAMAGES TAKE NOTICE thati'in with Rule 4:5-2. the defendant requires of the plaintiff within ?ve days :of service hereof a written statement of the amount of damages claimed in the within action. CERT CATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:6-1 I herebyr certify this p1; lading was served within the time period allowed under 4:6?1 or an extension thereof. IGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to the provi tons of Rule 4:244, the Court is hereby advised that John M. Bowens, Esq. has been designEtted trial counsel in this matter. i FT. -r a . 1131532131? 15:88 9?35?96?35 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT 16328 JURY DEMAND DEMAND is hereby tirade for a trial by jury on all issues. RULE CERTIFICATION I further certify, that 30 the best of my knowledge, in accordance with Rule: 4:5-1, this matter is not the subject of adiy other action. pending in any court nor. is it thus subject matter of a pending arbitration SCHENCK, PRICE, SMITH KING, LLP Attorneys for lcfendant chugh of Hamburg By: Ichn. M. Bowcns Dated: April 14, 2014 I llfl?fZSl? 15:38 SUSSEX CIVIL. COURT PAGE ACM :37 Amen dix FIJI-.1 USE: CIVIL CA INFORMATION STATEMENT PAYMENT TYPE: 'oK [:Ice Ian 1 CHGICK ND. 5.61% Jse for initial Law Division Amoum: CiviI Part pl dings (not motions) under Rule 4:54 4 ?33 PIeadirIg will rejected for filing, under Rule 1 Ovenmmem-z rf infamatio .. ?above the black bar is not completed or att ney?s signature Is not affixed BATCH NUMBER: 75-53% ATTORNEYIPRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE John M. Rowena. Esq. (973) 539-1000 FIRM NAME {ifappilcable} 3 DOCKET NUMBER [when available) Schenck. Price. Smith 81. King, :2 OFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE 220 Park Avenue. PO Box 991 Answer Fiorham Park. New Jersey 07932 JURY DEMAND IE Yes No NAME OF PARTY 03.9.. John Doe. Plaintiff} CAPTION The Borough of Hamburg, Defendant Daniei R. Farruggio VS. The Bomugh of Hamburg I i CASE WPENUMBEP HURRICANE sANm (Sac reverse side for Iisling) IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE YOU HAVE CHECKED SEE 2mm A -27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING YGUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT DF MERIT. RELATED CASES 1' IF YES. LIST DOCKET NUMBERS YES MD I I Do YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES NAME OF PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY (if known) (arising out or same Iransacimn or nmurrence}?; Scottsdale Insurance Company NONE YES No THE INFORMATION PROV CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES I: EDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE. DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION DD PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT. PAST OR IF YES. IS THAT REMTIONSHIP: RECURRENT RELATIONS HI ENPLOYERIEMPLOTEE FRIENDINEIGHBOR OTHER (explain) YES [3 No FAMILIAL BUSINESS DDES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE LOSING YES No USE THIS SPACE T0 ALERT THE COURT TO a, NY SPEGIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATED DISPOSITION . 1 APR 15 2014 6? Do YOU OR YOUR CLIENT ANY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE RESUESTED ACCOMMODATION CI YES BI No WILL AN INTERPRETER BE *1 IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE Yes El No I certify that con?dential pens-anal ident'- era we been redacted documsnm now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from ali ducumeed In re In accordance with Rule ATTORNEY Effective 03-19-2013.CN 1051 Y-Engiish 3 page 1 2 113153281? 15:68 EITHETEIBTBE SUSSEX CIVIL COURT PNGE 1 8.328 1 CIVEIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT ((315) Use for initial (not motions) under RuIe 4:54 Track 3 - 150 days' discovery 151 NAME CHANCE ?175 FCRFEITURE 302 TENANCY 399 REAL PROPERTY (other nan Tenancy. Contract. Condemnation. Complex Commercla! or Construction} 502 BCOK ACCOUNT (debt . IIacIIon matte-Ia only} 505 OTHER INSURANCE . [incIudIng declaratory judgment actions} 506 PIP COVERAGE - 5'10 UM or UIM CLAIM (nave 2 issues only} 511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABL INSTRUMENT 512 LEMON LAW CASE TYPES (Choose one and anti? number of case type in approgriate space on the reverse side.) I301 SUMMARY ACTION 802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORD. ACT (summaxy action} 999 OTHER (brie?y desc?be r1 Aura of action} Track II 300 days' discowry I 305 CONSTRUCTION 509 EMPLOYMENT {othertha CEPA or LAD) 599 TRANSACTION 603M AUTO NEGLIGENCE RSONAL INJURY (non-verbal 60W AUTO . SONAL INJURY (verbal threshold) 605 PERSONAL INJURY 810 AUTO NEGLIGENCE PERTY DAMAGE 621 UM or LEM CLAIM (Includ' .budily injury} 699 TORT - OTHER mack 450 days? discuvary 005 CIVIL RIGHTs I 301 CONDEMNATION I 502 ASSAULT AND BATTERY SEM- MEDICAL MALFRAC-TICE . 8GB PRODUCT LIABILITY 507 PROFESSIONAL MALPR: E503 TOXIC TORT i 609 DEFAMATTON I516 WHISTLEBLOWER I CON EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES 617 CGNDEMNATI . 61B LAW AGAINST DISCRIMII ATION GASES Track - Active Case Manag cut by Individual Judge I 450 days' discovery 156 ENVIRONMENTAUENVIF DNMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION 303 MT. LAUREL 508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL: 513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTI 514 INSURANCE FRAUD 620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT 7m ACTIONS IN LIEU CF FR GGATIVE WRITE Multicaunty LItigatIan (Track 266 HORMONE REPLACEME- THERAPY (HRT) 283 FRUDENTIAL TORT LITIGATION 271 ACCUTANEHSOTRETING 289 REGLAN 274 RISPERDAUSEROQUELE 290 LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION 278 ZUMETNAREDIA 291 PELVIC MESHIGYNEOARE 279 GAUULINIUM 292 PELVIC MESHIBARD 231 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIB ENVIRONMENTAL 293 ASR IMPLANT LITIGATION 232 FOSAMAX 295 ALLODERM REGENERATIVE TISSUE MATRIX 285: NWARING $1 296 REJUVENATEIABO MODULAR HIP STEM COMPONENTS 285 TRIDENT HIP I PLANTS 297 MIRENA CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE 285 601 ASBESTOS 287 YAZNASMINIOCELLA 623 PROPECIA If you bellm this case requlms a ck other than that provided abova. please Indicate the: reason on Ellis! 1. In the space under "Cane Character lies. Please check off each ap' Iicable catagary CI Putative 01333 Action Ti?e 59 Effective 1051 7~English WI. page 2 of 2 15:38 SUSSEX CIVIL COURT 19.328 i I D- - i JUL 132917 Louis M. Barbene, Eequ? {h .. ??52 i JACOBS BARBONE, Ft . I558): scum COURTHOUSE I A Professional Cert-aerating: 1 Atterneys at Law L5 1125 Pacific Avenue Atlantic City. N.J. 0840?] (ens) 343?1125 Attorneys fer Plaintiff. i DANIEL R1 FARRueeIct SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW Dmsremr CIVIL PART Plaintiff SUESEX COUNTY v. 5 DOCKET NO. THE BOROUGH OF HAFIBURG. Civii Aetien ENTRY 0F FINAL JUDGMENT THIS MATTER hiving been epened to the Court upon the plainti?i's fiting of hie eempiaint on February 6a 014, and a petitjury having been empaneied to try the matter in dispute between the i ertiee commencing June 26, 2017?, and trial having been cempleted with the petitlrury?s verdicts on damages and punitive damages, all received by the Cedrt on _uiy 5, 201?. end there appearing no cease to the contrary; IT Is ON THIS DAY OF JU 201?: ORDERED rad ADJUDGED that judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Daniel Ft. Farruggie and against efendani: Borough of Hamburg 0n plaintist ciaim pursuant to the New Jersey Censcie?tieue Employee Protection Act he and hereby is entered, the Jury having feund by spejiai interrogatories that the Borough violated the Act by taking adverse employment 21ch egaihst the plaintiff; 2. iS FUR ER ORDERED and ADJIJDGED that pursuant to the jury's verdict on July 5, 201?, titat judgment be and hereby is entered against the Borough in llflEur?QEil? 15:96 SUSSEX CIVIL. COURT the amount of $144,000 it lost wages to the plaintiff, and in the amount of $500,000 for plaintiff's emotional distre and other damages: 3. IT IS FUR ER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that pursuant ta the jury's supplemental verdict on unitive damages, that judgment be and hereby is entered againet the Borough on finitive damages in the greea ameunt of $300,000; 4. 1T lS EFORE FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the tatal judgment entered again the Borough far all damagee due and {rating the plaintiff is enteret? in the grass of 01,4445300; 5. is ER ORDERED and mm DGED that plaintiff?s counsel shall ?le hie fee application tc-{the Court within 20 cf the jury?s Verdi earn an or before July 25, 2017- i s. ?a FRANK