A state appellate court has ruled that a woman's electronic 311 message to the city of Hoboken regarding an injury she sustained by stepping in a pothole was sufficient to put the city on notice of the issue under the Tort Claims Act.

In a per curiam decision Monday, the Appellate Division affirmed a lower court's ruling that plaintiff Eileen Martinez's electronic notification was in compliance with the TCA, rebutting the city's claims that it was unable to investigate the circumstances of Martinez's injury.

Under the TCA, a person may not bring an action against a public entity unless the person presents the public entity with a notice of claim within 90 days after the cause of action accrued, the opinion noted.

Martinez claimed her March 20, 2018, message to Hoboken's 311 online reporting system was filed within 90 days of her injury—sustained when she stepped into a pothole that morning, injury her foot, her suit claims.

She attached a photo and, according to the opinion, wrote: "I would like to address the horrible pothole situation all thru Washington St. put in particular on the corner of 9th and Washington St. On the morning of March 20th 2019 at 8:10 [a.m.] crossing the street to catch the bus watching cars turning to make sure [I] didn't get hit by [a] car[,] my foot went into a pothole and [I] hurt my foot. Had to go to Hoboken University to get it treated. Had to miss a day of school because of this. Something needs to [be] done about the potholes on Washington St[.] [as soon as possible]. I was only allowed to upload [one] picture but have many more. If you need more pictures[,] your more then welcome to contact me."

Martinez got no response and hired an attorney, who contacted the city, asking whether her 311 message was sufficient notice. The city sent back its official tort claim form, which the attorney completed, though after the 90-day period had ended, according to the court.

Hoboken claimed Martinez failed to strictly comply with the TCA.

Hudson County Superior Court Judge Mary Costello agreed with Martinez that the 311 message was sufficient, after which the city appealed.

The Appellate Division in its opinion Monday said, "On October 15, 2018, plaintiff's counsel filed the 'official tort claims act notice form' with the city. There is no dispute that plaintiff provided all the information required in the city's 'official tort claims act notice form.' Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for her failure to strictly comply with the notice of claim requirements of the TCA."

The city claimed that it was prejudiced by the alleged failure to effectively notify it about Martinez's pothole injury.

"While the City claims it never received plaintiff's 311 message, the record does not support that contention. Two days after plaintiff's 311 message was sent, the city responded to plaintiff and assigned a tracking number," the opinion said. "Based on the city's response to plaintiff, we are satisfied that her notice of claim in the 311 message was 'actually received at … [the] local public entity within the time prescribed for presentation thereof,' … and therefore the City received timely notice of the claim."

The opinion added, "Although the city argues it 'was unable to immediately and properly investigate the incident of the alleged condition,' the city had the exact street location of the pothole that caused plaintiff's injury. Based on the information in plaintiff's 311 message, the city could have inspected the intersection of 9th Street and Washington Street to confirm the condition of the road. There is nothing in the record explaining why, under these circumstances, 'the City was unable to properly investigate any claim of plaintiff.' Nor did the City explain why it 'could not have an expert opine about any alleged defect at the time of the accident' since plaintiff provided information with the exact location of the pothole on March 20, 2018."

Vijayant Pawar of The Law Firm of Pawar Gilgallon & Rudy in Morristown represents the city and did not respond to a request for comment.

Patrick Cahalane of Anglin, Rea & Cahalane in Cranbury represents Martinez and also did not respond to a request for comment.