BY KATHY CHANG
Staff Writer
EDISON — A state appeals court has upheld a lower court decision involving a resident’s suit against four Edison police officers.
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the decision of “no cause of action” in a jury trial of a township resident’s civil suit against four Edison Township Police officers. The defendant claimed unlawful arrest and assault in an incident in 2009.
The civil lawsuit stemmed from an incident on Nov. 11, 2009 when Kenneth Marcotte called 911 after his wife allegedly struck him with a hand-held massager.
Four Edison officers arrived at his home and when officers refused to arrest the plaintiff’s wife, he became “very, very mad,” according to the court papers.
Patrolman Victor Aravena had instructed Marcotte to calm down; however, Marcotte countered with words and poked Aravena in the chest. In response, the officers handcuffed the plaintiff and informed him he was under arrest.
Marcotte, during his criminal trial, told the court that he became upset when the officers refused to arrest his wife, and, in the course of directing the officers to leave his property, his outstretched finger made contact with Aravena.
He contended that Aravena grabbed him by the neck, pulled him to the ground, handcuffed him and stepped on his testicles, according to the court papers.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Marcotte pleaded guilty to a municipal ordinance violation. The municipal court imposed $350 in fines and $33 in costs.
On Nov. 14, 2011, Marcotte filed a four-count civil complaint against Edison Township, the Edison Police Department and the four officers.
The complaint alleged violations of the New Jersey Constitution, violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, assault and unlawful arrest.
Summary judgment was granted in favor of Edison Township and three officers in 2013.
On Jan. 21, 2014, trial commenced with Aravena as the sole remaining defendant. The jury returned a verdict after a three-day trial in favor of Aravena and the court entered a judgment of “no cause.”
Marcotte appealed contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the civil trial entitling him to a new trial and the court erred in granting the other officers a favorable summary judgment.
The two judge panel deciding the appeal stated in a decision released on July 25 that “there is no constitutional right to counsel in ordinary civil cases such as this one, and thus no right to a new trial based upon alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court added in essence, Marcotte was attempting to import a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel from the criminal context into the civil context.
The court did not address Marcotte’s arguments about the favorable summary judgment for the other officers because the court said they were not properly argued on appeal.