EL Aemer El Mujaddid v. City of Vineland et. al. CAM-L-004550-13 Law Division Superior Court of New Jersey Camden Vicinage Pages 26-27 Opinion issued August 1st, 2013: Prongs one and four of this analysis are not in dispute in this case because all parties concede there was a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff and that was ultimately dismissed. The question at this juncture is whether the pleadings suggest that there was a lack of probable cause for the proceedings and that the prosecution of plaintiff was actuated by malice. The court finds that Mr. El Mujaddid has alleged a lack of probable cause for first, the criminal action against him, and later, the disorderly person charges against him in municipal court. In addition, Mr. El Mujaddid has raised the prosecution of malice, by alleging that the actions of Lynne Wehling, who was allegedly instrumental in charging him after his arrest, were later subject to criminal investigation. In addition, plaintiff has alleged a scheme of discriminatory conduct by law enforcement and the prosecutors which may also support a finding of malice. Given that a malicious prosecution claim may go forward on the basis of the facts alleged, the court must address the defenses raised by the defendants. privateattorneygenerals/category/blog/
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:58:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015