(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
(NOTE: The Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in Judge Lesemann's opinion below.)
Argued February 26, 2001 -- Decided May 9, 2001
PER CURIAM
The issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff's cause of action for fraud accrued on the date he received notice
of his termination from employment or on the effective date of his discharge.
At some point prior to November 11, 1991, the individual defendants, Carmine Coppola, Ruth E. Miller, and
Arther B. Branstine (all upper management personnel with the Customer Service Division (CSD) of TRW), solicited
plaintiff, Ralph Holmin, to leave his job with Mitsubishi Bank and come to work for TRW. At that time, they allegedly
assured him that his employment would be continuous and terminable only for just and sufficient cause and that if he
performed his job duties, he would have a secure future with CSD and TRW. They did not tell Holmin that CSD was
having financial difficulty, that it was being considered for sale, and that his intended position would be eliminated
within a short time after his employment. Holmin further alleged that during the interview process, he was told that
because he was the only person in the department, there was no chance that he could be laid off. In reliance on those
representations, Holmin left Mitsubishi and accepted the job with TRW.
By letter dated February 28, 1992, Holmin was advised that his position was being eliminated and that he was
being terminated by CSD and TRW effective March 13, 1992. After unsuccessfully pursuing an employee grievance,
Holmin filed a complaint on March 11, 1998 - less than six years after his last day of work and the effective date of his
discharge, but more than six years after the date of the letter notifying him of the elimination of his position and of his
discharge. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Holmin's complaint, which the trial court granted.
On appeal, Holmin maintained that the six-year statute of limitations contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 should be
measured from his last day of work rather than from the date of the letter notifying him of his termination. The
Appellate Division concluded that the six-year statute of limitations period was to be measured from the date a
plaintiff's cause of action accrues and the date on which the right to institute suit first arises. Since Holmin's complaint
was grounded in fraud, an essential element of which is resultant damages, the Appellate Division concluded that a
cause of action did not accrue until Holmin actually suffered damages. The panel concluded that he did not suffer any
damages until his employment ended on March 13, 1992. Thus, the Appellate Division found that Holmin had filed his
complaint in a timely manner and reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded it for further proceedings.
HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Lesemann's
opinion below. A statutory limitation period in respect of a cause of action does not commence until that cause of
action accrues; plaintiff's cause of action based on fraud accrued only when he was damaged by the actual termination
of his employment; the six-year statutory period began to run on plaintiff's last day of work, which was the effective
date of his discharge.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA,
and ZAZZALI join in this opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-
12 September Term 2000
RALPH W. HOLMIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TRW, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
CARMINE COPPOLA, RUTH E.
MILLER, ARTHUR B. BRANSTINE
and SYNNEX INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants.
Argued February 26, 2001 -- Decided May 9, 2001
On certification to the Superior Court,
Appellate Division, whose opinion is
reported at
330 N.J. Super. 30 (2000).
Scott J. Wenner, a member of the New York
bar, argued the cause for appellant (Littler
Mendelson, attorneys; Mr. Wenner, Stefanie
W. Kohen and William P. McLane, on the
briefs).
David J. Gruber argued the cause for
respondent (Lehman, Lehman & Gruber,
attorneys).
Jon W. Green argued the cause for amicus
curiae, National Employment Lawyers
Association of New Jersey (Deutsch Resnick
Green & Gramigna, attorneys).
PER CURIAM
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons
expressed in Judge Lesemann's opinion of the Appellate Division,
reported at
330 N.J. Super. 30 (2000).
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG,
VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA and ZAZZALI join in this opinion.
NO. A-12 SEPTEMBER TERM 2000
ON APPEAL FROM
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
RALPH W. HOLMIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TRW, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
CARMINE COPPOLA, RUTH E.
MILLER, ARTHUR E. BRANSTINE
and SYNNEX INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants.
DECIDED May 9, 2001
Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING
OPINION BY Per Curiam
CONCURRING OPINION BY
DISSENTING OPINION BY