M.J.L. v. S.N.

── M.J.L. v. S.N. ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0155-24 M.J.L.,1 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.N., Defendant-Respondent. ________________________ Argued May 11, 2026 – Decided May 21, 2026 Before Judges Natali, Walcott-Henderson and Bergman. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-1728-19. Michael Confusione argued the cause for appellant (Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys; Michael Confusione, of counsel and on the briefs). 1 We use initials to exclude from public access the identity of individuals referenced in this dispute to maintain the confidentiality of their medical information. R. 1:38-3(a)(2).  S.N., self-represented respondent, argued the cause (Rajeh A. Saadeh and Alex Barrett Dowland, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff, M.J.L, appeals from a September 16, 2024 final judgment issued after a non-jury trial. The judgment memorialized the court's determination of a no cause of action verdict with respect to the defamation claim asserted against defendant S.N., and also granted defendant a $232,327.45 judgment, reflecting $100,000 in compensatory damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, $31,852.45 in prejudgment interest and $475 in costs with respect to her counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Plaintiff raises only the following three challenges to the court's final judgment. First, she contends the court committed legal error when it denied her application to dismiss defendant's counterclaim of IIED, which plaintiff argues the statute of limitations barred despite the court's finding that its predicate campaign of harassment began in 2015 and continued through 2020. Second, she maintains the court abused its discretion when it reconsidered a motion in limine and admitted certain evidence of that harassment. Third, she contends the court failed to apply properly the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, A-0155-24 2 N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to :12-3 (TCA) as a shield against civil liability. We discern no merit to any of plaintiff's arguments and accordingly affirm the final judgment. I. The trial record reflects the following facts which we recount in detail, and at a higher level of granularity than normal, as we deem it necessary to address the nature and gravity of the continuing, egregious conduct perpetrated by plaintiff upon defendant as found by the trial court and further confirmed by the record. Defendant met L.S. in 2012 or 2013, and their relationship was initially platonic. The same year, she met plaintiff, a psychiatric nurse practitioner at Rutgers United Behavioral Health (UBHC). At the time the parties met, defendant and L.S. were twenty-one years old, and plaintiff was over fifty. According to defendant, L.S. suffered "from bipolar disorder" and a dependency on oxycodone. Defendant knew L.S. used drugs recreationally, but was not specifically aware he was addicted to opiates. Defendant also knew L.S. was in an "on and off" relationship with plaintiff, and that