Recent Decisions of the New Jersey Appellate Courts
from 2024-04-11
to 2024-04-25
Docket No.: a_47_22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: C.R. v. M. T.
Summary:
The plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2) creates a standard that is permissive and easily satisfied. Here, plaintiff testified that a sexual assault u201cdestroyedu201d her, she was intensely traumatized, and she was u201cterrifiedu201d for her safety. The family court found her testimony credible. Based on that testimony, the court held plaintiff had demonstrated a u201cpossibility of future risku201d to her u201csafety or well-being.u201d The Court affirms.u003C/pu003Colu003Cliu201cAny person alleging to be a victim of nonconsensual sexual contact, sexual penetration, or lewdness, or any attempt at such conduct,u201d who is not eligible for a restraining order as a u201cvictim of domestic violenceu201d under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991 (PDVA) may apply for a protective order under SASPA. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-14(a)(1), -16. The standard for granting a SASPA protective order differs depending on whether the applicant seeks a temporary or final order. Importantly, an FPO does not require a showing that it is u201cnecessary to protect the safety and well-beingu201d of the victim like a TPO does, u003Cuseeu003C/u N.J.S.A. 2C:14-15(a); rather, an FPO requires only the u201cpossibility of future risk to the safety or well-being of the alleged victim,u201d N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2). (pp. 14-18)u003C/liu003CliThe permissive standards for a SASPA TPO and a PDVA temporary restraining order (TRO) are nearly identical, as are the procedures for seeking a PDVA final restraining order (FRO) and a SASPA FPO. Notably, both SASPA FPOs and PDVA FROs require consideration of a list of non-exhaustive factors, but SASPA lists only two such factors -- u201c(1) the occurrence of one or more acts of nonconsensual sexual contact, sexual penetration, or lewdness . . . ; and (2) the possibility of future risk to the safety or well-being of the alleged victim,u201d N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a) -- whereas the PDVA lists six, u003Cuseeu003C/u N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a). The Legislature could have duplicated the second factor for a PDVA FRO -- u201c[t]he existence of immediate danger to person or property,u201d N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(2) -- in SASPA, but it did not. In addition, the consequences to a defendant of a PDVA FRO are drastically different from the consequences to a respondent of a SASPA FPO. (pp. 18-22)u003C/liu003CliApplying ordinary definitions of the terms used in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2), the statuteu2019s plain language requires a court to consider whether there is a chance that a survivor may be exposed to physicalu003Cbr /danger, risk, or injury, or may be exposed to something emotionally unwelcome or unpleasant that could make the survivor feel uncomfortable, unhealthy, or unhappy. Because the language of factor two is centered on the safety or well-being of the victim-survivor, a survivoru2019s own testimony regarding possible future risks to their safety or emotional well-being can suffice. The Courtu2019s reading of the plain text of factor two as creating a lenient and easy-to-satisfy standard is reinforced by context: the u201cpossibility of future risku201d required for a SASPA FPO is less demanding than the u201cnecessaryu201d protection required for a SASPA TPO or the u201cimmediate dangeru201d required for a PDVA FRO. Applying that standard, the Court defers to the trial courtu2019s factual findings because they are supported by substantial evidence and finds no error in the courtu2019s legal conclusion. (pp. 22-26)u003C/liu003CliThe Court explains why it is not persuaded by Martinu2019s claims of error, why it disagrees with the concurrenceu2019s view of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(e) and (f), and why it declines to adopt either the six PDVA factors or the standard established for PDVA FROs for use in the SASPA context. Finally, the Court explains that its discussion of Clarau2019s testimony is not intended to imply that such evidence of psychological symptoms or treatment is necessary to satisfy N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2). (pp. 26-33)u003C/liu003C/ol
Docket No.: a_33_22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey
Summary:
CPANJ is neither a public agency under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 nor a public entity subject to the common law right of access. The ACLUu2019s factual allegations do not support a claim against CPANJ under OPRA or the common law.u003C/p1. OPRA applies only if the entity to which a request is directed meets the statutory definition of a public agency. For purposes of OPRA, the terms u201cpublic agencyu201d or u201cagencyu201d denote the entities specified in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, which include u201cany political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any division, board, bureau, office, commission or other instrumentality within or created by a political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any independent authority, commission, instrumentality or agency created by a political subdivision or combination of political subdivisions.u201d The term u201cpolitical subdivisionu201d denotes a division of a state that exists primarily to discharge some function of local government, such as a county or municipality, as well as certain entities formed by counties and municipalities, such as parking authorities. The ACLU argues that CPANJ is an instrumentality of the county prosecutors. Accordingly, the core question in this appeal is whether a county prosecutor constitutes a u201cpolitical subdivisionu201d for purposes of OPRA. (pp. 14-22)u003C/p2. A county is indisputably a u201cpolitical subdivision of the Stateu201d as defined in OPRA, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. The status of the counties themselves as political subdivisions under OPRA, however, has no bearing on the analysis. A county prosecutor is distinct from the county that the prosecutor serves for purposes of OPRAu2019s reach. A county prosecutor, like the Attorney General, is a constitutional officer who serves by virtue of gubernatorial nomination and Senate confirmation. Although a county exercises considerable control over the fiscal operations of the county prosecutoru2019s office, a county prosecutoru2019s law enforcement function is unsupervised by county government or any other agency of local government. In short, the county prosecutor is not the alter ego of the county itself, and does not constitute a u201cpolitical subdivisionu201d as that term is used in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. CPANJ, meanwhile, constitutes an organization in which the county prosecutors are members and is not the alter ego of the prosecutors themselves. Because a prosecutor does not meet the definition of a u201cpolitical subdivisionu201d under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1u2019s plain language, CPANJ is not a public agency for purposes of OPRA. The ACLUu2019s factual allegations do not support its assertion that CPANJ is a public agency within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Because the ACLU did not seek the documents from a public agency in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5 and -6, the Court does not reach the question whether the documents identified in its request constitute u201cgovernment recordsu201d under OPRA. (pp. 22-26)u003C/p3. A public record under the common law is one that is made by a public official in the exercise of the officialu2019s public function, either because the record was required or directed by law to be made or kept, or because it was filed in a public office. Here, the ACLU identifies no statute, regulation, or other mandate requiring CPANJ to create or maintain the requested documents. It suggests no statutory or regulatory mandates of any kind addressing the records at issue. The ACLU does not allege that CPANJ maintains public documents in a public office; indeed, it does not dispute CPANJu2019s assertion that it maintains no office at all. The ACLU identifies no precedential decision discussing, let alone upholding, a request for public documents served on a private entity such as CPANJ. In short, the ACLU asserts no factual allegations that would suggest that CPANJ constitutes an entity upon which a common law right of access request for documents may properly be served. The Court does not reach the question whether the documents that the ACLU requested from CPANJ would be considered common law public documents if requested from a public entity. (pp. 26-29)u003C/p
Docket No.: a_52_22
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: Comprehensive Neurosurgical, P.C. et al. v. The Valley Hospital et al.
Summary:
Plaintiffsu2019 good faith and fair dealing claim properly survived summary judgment, but the jury was not correctly charged or asked to rule on that claim. The trial judge failed to instruct the jury that the only underlying contract to which the implied covenant could attach to had to be one beyond the rights afforded by the Bylaws. Adding to the significant uncertainty created by the jury charge and verdict sheet are the improper admission into evidence of the privileged emails and the improper remarks by plaintiffsu2019 attorney. Those errors, cumulatively, had the capacity to lead the jury to reach a verdict it would not have otherwise reached and thus deprived Valley of a fair trial.u003Cbr /u003Cbr /1. A claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implied by law into every contract requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendantu2019s alleged misdeeds prevented the plaintiff from enjoying the full benefit of a particular bargain. Although medical staff bylaws impose reciprocal legal obligations and rights between those who agreed to be bound, those obligations do not give rise to a traditional contract, to a claim for the traditional contract remedy of damages, or to a separate breach of the implied covenant claim. Instead, when a hospital violates its medical staff bylaws, equitable relief may be available. Thus, plaintiffs here would have been entitled to a hearing if Valley had violated the Bylaws by failing to provide one in the first place; the jury, however, expressly found that Valley did not violate the Bylaws. The Bylaws cannot constitute the underlying contract for purposes of plaintiffsu2019 separate breach of the implied covenant claim. (pp. 28-34)u003Cbr /u003Cbr /2. Just as the Bylaws here offer no ground for a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, Valleyu2019s administrative healthcare decision to award exclusive privileges to a particular group cannot on its own give rise to a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A hospital may not act in bad faith and simultaneously serve a u201cgenuineu201d healthcare objective based on u201creasonable and reliableu201d information. See u003CuDesaiu003C/u, 103 N.J. at 91-93. Physicians who are adversely affected by a hospitalu2019s administrative healthcare decision may challenge that decision by arguing that it was not made in accordance with the standard set forth in u003CuDesaiu003C/u. Here, however, the trial judge concluded that plaintiffsu2019 challenge to theu0026nbsp;Valleyu2019s grant of exclusive privileges was u201csubsumedu201d with their implied covenant claim. As a result, the legal principles related to Valleyu2019s administrative decision became relevant only as to its defense to the implied covenant claim, and not as an asserted basis for money damages. (pp. 34-38)u003Cbr /u003Cbr /3. The final basis advanced in the course of this litigation for finding that Valley was bound to act in good faith and deal fairly with plaintiffs is an alleged implied contract between the parties, one that goes u201cbeyond the Bylaws.u201d Plaintiffs allege that, from Valleyu2019s initial offer to join and collaboratively build Valleyu2019s neuroscience department and from the partiesu2019 course of dealings since plaintiffs joined, it can be reasonably inferred that an implied contract existed between plaintiffs and Valley that would allegedly support their expectation to indefinitely maintain their privileges and rights absent a valid administrative healthcare decision providing otherwise. In the event that plaintiffs could demonstrate that all the fundamental elements of contract formation had been established, their theory of an agreement beyond the rights afforded by the Bylaws would be contractual in nature. Among the three possible sources to support plaintiffsu2019 claim here -- the Bylaws, Valleyu2019s administrative healthcare decision, and the alleged implied-in-fact contract between plaintiffs and Valley -- the only alleged source of mutual obligation to which the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing could properly attach to is the implied-in-fact contract. (pp. 38-41)u003Cbr /u003Cbr /4. The Court explains how the evidence in the record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, was sufficient to raise a factual dispute as to whether there was an implied-in-fact contract between plaintiffs and Valley and whether Valley acted in bad faith in revoking certain of plaintiffsu2019 privileges, such that the claim properly survived summary judgment. Although the claim properly reached the jury, however, the jury charge and verdict sheet did not properly instruct the jurors on the elements of the claim. Notably, the jury was given no law on how to measure Valleyu2019s defense to the implied covenant claim, and consideration of the jury charge as a whole raises significant doubt as to whether the jury found the underlying contract for plaintiffsu2019 implied covenant claim to be some implied or oral agreement beyond the Bylaws, or just the Bylaws. The jury could have come to a different result had it been correctly instructed on the contract claims, especially because the underlying contract on the implied covenant claim -- purportedly an endless right to treat u201cunassignedu201d ER patients with special tools -- was not in writing. (pp. 41-52).u003Cbr /u003Cbr /5. The emails between Valley and its general counsel for the purpose of legal advice, rather than business purposes, are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Valley did not place its general counselu2019s pre-litigation legal advice u201cin-issue,u201d nor did it call its general counsel as a witness. Valleyu2019s inadvertent disclosure of the emails -- allegedly consisting of 352 pages -- in the course of an exchange of about 57,000 documents in roughly two months did not amount to waiver of the attorney-client privilege. The partiesu2019 discovery agreementu2019s claw-back provision anticipated precisely such an inadvertence. And admission of the emails into evidence was not harmless. Select emails in many ways became the centerpiece of plaintiffsu2019 case. On remand, if plaintiffs attempt to introduce emails from the batch Valley attempted to claw back, the judge should conduct a document-by-document review to determine whether the emails are privileged and thus not admissible. (pp. 52-58)u003Cbr /u003Cbr /6. Certain comments by plaintiffsu2019 trial counsel in summation were improper. Plaintiffsu2019 trial counsel knew that Valley had evidence of sixty cases of patient transfers. The summation remarks implied, however, that there was evidence of only two cases of patient transfers, and that inaccurate statement impacted Valleyu2019s contention that it made a valid healthcare decision. (pp. 58-61)u003Cbr /u003Cbr /7. The cumulative errors here deprived Valley of a fair trial and warrant a new one. The Court sets forth specific guidance for the remand proceedings. (pp. 61-62)u003C/p
Docket No.: a2232-22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPETITIVE SOLAR INCENTIVE
Status: Published
Summary:
Pursuant to the Solar Act of 2021, N.J.S.A. 48:3-114 to -120, the Legislature directed the Board of Public Utilities to create a solar facilities program for awarding contracts for grid supply solar facilities and net metered solar facilities greater than five megawatts.u0026nbsp; In addition to setting renewable energy goals for the State, the Act directs the development of policy for grid supply solar siting so as not to compromise the Stateu0027s commitment to preserving and protecting open space and farmland.u0026nbsp;u003C/pTo that end, the Board developed a competitive solar incentive (CSI) program in coordination with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture, and the State Agriculture Development Committee to issue recommendations and a straw proposal on siting requirements.u0026nbsp; After a four-year process, which included extensive stakeholder engagement, the Board issued an order that launched the CSI Program.u0026nbsp;u003C/pN.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c) sets forth seven categories of land where solar facilities shall not be sited unless authorized by a waiver.u0026nbsp; N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c)(7) prohibits siting solar facilities on certain agricultural soils where the grid supply solar facility exceeds the Statewide threshold of 2.5% of such soils unless authorized by the waiver process pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f).u0026nbsp; N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) describes the waiver process but also states that in no case shall a grid supply solar facility occupy more than 5% of the unpreserved land containing prime agricultural soils and soils of Statewide importance located within any countyu0027s designated agricultural development area.u003C/pAppellant moved for reconsideration, arguing the Board misinterpreted the siting provisions of the Act codified in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119.u0026nbsp; Among other arguments raised by appellant before the Board and on appeal, appellant claimed the Board misinterpreted the Act and ignored the legislative history.u0026nbsp; Appellant alleged the 5% per county limit could be exceeded if the 2.5% Statewide limit was not exceeded.u0026nbsp; The Board interpreted the siting provisions independently and held the 5% per county limit on development could not be waived.u0026nbsp;u003C/pThe court affirmed the Boardu0027s ruling and found the plain language of the Act demonstrated N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)u0027s limit on solar development to 5% of a countyu0027s agricultural land was unambiguous.u0026nbsp; The 2.5% Statewide limit expressed in N.J.S.A. 483-119(c)(7) served a different purpose and was not a means for a solar developer to exceed the 5% per county restriction.u0026nbsp; Moreover, applying the per county limit only after the Statewide limit has been reached could lead to the development of the entirety of a countyu0027s agricultural lands.u003C/pGiven the Actu0027s unambiguous language, the court did not need to resort to the legislative history.u0026nbsp; Even so, the legislative history showed the Legislature intended to minimize the potential adverse environmental impacts of solar development and the Legislature never revised the 5% per county limit or stated the per county limit could be waived in either version of the bill before it became law.u0026nbsp;u003C/pThe Boardu0027s interpretation of the Act balanced the Legislatureu0027s intent to preserve the Stateu0027s vital natural resources while encouraging the development of clean solar energy. u0026nbsp;u003C/p
Docket No.: a2765-21
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS VS. THOMAS J. TRAUTNER, ET AL.
Status: Published
Summary:
The Borough of Englewood Cliffs retained Thomas J. Trautner and Chiesa Shahinian u0026amp; Giantomasi PC, (collectively CSG), Albert Wunsch III, and Jeffrey Surenian and Jeffrey Surenian and Associates, LLC, (collectively Surenian) to represent it in affordable housing litigation.u0026nbsp; After judgment was entered for developer 800 Sylvan Avenue, LLC. (Sylvan), a settlement was reached between the Borough and Sylvan.u0026nbsp; Thereafter, political control of the Borough Council majority changed hands and the newly constituted Council sued CSG, Wunsch, and Surenian, alleging professional malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting arising from their representation of the Borough in the litigation.u0026nbsp; The Borough also sued Sylvan, alleging claims of conspiracy and aiding and abetting.u0026nbsp;u003C/pThe trial court granted defendantsu0027 u003CuRuleu003C/u 4:6-2(e) motions to dismiss the Boroughu0027s complaint with prejudice.u0026nbsp; The trial court subsequently granted defendantsu0027 motion for sanctions, ordering the Borough to pay their attorneyu0027s fees and costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit.u0026nbsp; The Borough appeals, arguing the sanction applications were procedurally deficient; as a public entity, it is immune from paying sanctions under the FLS; and the trial court abused its discretion in finding the Boroughu0027s lawsuit was frivolous.u003Ca href=u0022#_ftn1u0022 title=u0022u0022[1]u003C/au003C/pThe court rejects the Boroughu0027s arguments and affirms based on our interpretation of the FLS that the Borough is not immune from sanctions, defendantsu0027 applications for sanctions were procedurally compliant with u003CuRule u003C/u1:4-8, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against the Borough.u003C/pu003Cuu0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u003C/uu003C/pu003Ca href=u0022#_ftnref1u0022 title=u0022u0022[1]u003C/a After their merit briefs were filed, the Borough and Jeffrey Surenian and Jeffrey Surenian and Associates, LLC filed a stipulation of dismissal dismissing all claims and counterclaims, including but not limited to claims for attorneyu0027s fees.u003C/p
Docket No.: a2825-22
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: M.R. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Status: Published
Summary:
u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp; M.R. appealed from a final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), denying his application for a certificate of eligibility for compassionate release under the Compassionate Release Act (CRA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e.u0026nbsp; The DOC denied his application because two licensed physicians designated by the commissioner of the DOC had rendered medical diagnoses in which they found M.R. had neither a terminal condition nor a permanent physical incapacity as defined by the CRA.u0026nbsp; u0026nbsp;u003C/pu0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp;u0026nbsp; M.R. argued on appeal the CRA and related regulations required the designated physicians to examine him physically and the DOCu0027s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the physicians had not physically examined him and had failed to make certain findings required under the CRA.u0026nbsp; The court disagreed, concluding that, while a physician may request a physical examination, the CRA and related regulations did not require one.u0026nbsp; The court also concluded the physicians had made the requisite findings.u0026nbsp; Accordingly, the court affirmed the DOCu0027s decision.u0026nbsp;u003C/p
Docket No.: a3847-22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: EARNEKA WIGGINS, ET AL. VS. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, ET AL.
Status: Published
Summary:
On leave granted, in this medical negligence matter, we consider whether N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a) under the New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-37 to -42, requires plaintiffs to serve an affidavit of merit (AOM) from a physician board certified in both specialties if defendant physician is board certified in two specialties, and the treatment claimed to be negligent involves both specialties.u003C/pPlaintiffs rely on u003CuBuck v. Henryu003C/u, 207 N.J. 377 (2011), in asserting they need only provide an AOM from a physician who specializes in u003Cueitheru003C/u of the defendant doctoru0027s specialties.u0026nbsp; The trial court agreed and denied defendantsu0027 motions to dismiss for failure to provide the proper AOM and for reconsideration.u003C/pDefendant physician is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology.u0026nbsp; He certified that his care and treatment of plaintiffsu0027 decedent involved both specialties.u0026nbsp; Plaintiffs only served an AOM from a physician board certified in internal medicine.u003C/pIn considering defendantsu0027 dismissal motions, the trial court cited to two sentences from u003CuBucku003C/u:u0026nbsp; u0022A physician may practice in more than one specialty, and the treatment involved may fall within that physicianu0027s multiple specialty areas.u0026nbsp; In that case, an [AOM] from a physician specializing in either area will suffice.u0022u0026nbsp; u003CuId.u003C/u at 391.u003C/pBecause the facts presented here are distinguishable from u003CuBucku003C/u and the discrete ruling in u003CuBucku003C/u was not specific to this issue, and in considering the legislative purpose of the Act, and the principles of law espoused in the subsequent cases of u003CuNicholas v. Mynsteru003C/u, 213 N.J. 463, 480-88 (2013), and u003CuPfannenstein ex. rel. Estate of Pfannenstein v. Surreyu003C/u, 475 N.J. Super. 83, 90-91 (App. Div.), u003Cucertif. deniedu003C/u, 254 N.J. 517 (2023), we conclude plaintiffs must serve an AOM from a physician board certified in each of defendant doctoru0027s specialties.u0026nbsp; We are also guided by the kind-for-kind, credential equivalency requirement articulated in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a).u0026nbsp; Therefore, we reverse the courtu0027s orders denying defendantsu0027 motions to dismiss for a deficient AOM and for reconsideration.u003C/pHowever, because plaintiffs raised the issue of a waiver from the AOM requirement, and the issue was fully briefed and discussed during oral argument before the trial court, we remand for the court to determine the waiver argument on its merits.u003C/p
Docket No.: a1168-22
Decided: 2024-04-23
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OLVIN VARGAS
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Olvin Vargas appeals from the August 24, 2022 order denying
his petition for post-conviction relief PCR without an evidentiary hearing. We
vacate the challenged order and remand for further proceedings.
Docket No.: a1319-22
Decided: 2024-04-23
Caption: IN THE MATTER OF BOROUGH OF CARTERET AND LOCAL 67, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Borough of Carteret Borough appeals from a November 22,
2022 final agency decision of the Public Employment Relations Commission
PERC denying the Borough's clarification of unit CU petition to exclude
lieutenants from Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association, Local 67 Local
67, a collective bargaining unit that also represents rank-and-file members of
the Borough's fire department. Reversing the decision of its Director of
Representation Director, the PERC Board concluded there was no actual or
potential conflict of interest as to require severing a combined unit that has been
in existence since 1965. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the
governing legal principles and arguments of the parties, we affirm.
Docket No.: a1950-21
Decided: 2024-04-23
Caption: IN THE MATTER OF THE GRANT OF RENEWAL APPLICATION OF THE RED BANK CHARTER SCHOOL, ETC.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
The Board of Education of the Borough of Red Bank "the School Board"
appeals from the February 1, 2022 final agency decision of the then-Acting
Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education "DOE", renewing
the charter of the Red Bank Charter School "RBCS" for the 2022-2027 five-
year term. Over the objection of the School Board, the Acting Commissioner
approved RBCS's renewal application based primarily on the school's academic
performance, fiscal viability, and operational stability. 1 The School Board
opposed renewal, arguing that RBCS has contributed to a racial/ethnic, socio -
economic, and academic demographic imbalance within the Red Bank school
district.
Docket No.: a2037-22
Decided: 2024-04-23
Caption: MARLINE ROMHEM, ET AL. VS. FRANKLIN MUTUAL INSURANCE, INC.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Marline Romhen and Ibrahim Mirkhan appeal from a January
26, 2023 Law Division order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant
Franklin Mutual Insurance Company FMI.1 The sole issue before us is whether
the complaint initiating the lawsuit was filed within the one-year "shortened suit
clause" of the insurance policy. Plaintiffs filed their suit on a Monday. The trial
court ruled the suit had to be filed on or before the preceding Saturday, and thus
held the complaint was untimely filed. Applying a de novo standard of review,
we interpret the insurance policy under prevailing decisional law as a contract
construed in favor of the policyholder and reverse.
Docket No.: a2344-22
Decided: 2024-04-23
Caption: R.S. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner R.S.1 appeals from the March 17, 2023 final agency decision of
the Department of Human Services "DHS", reversing the Administrative Law
Judge's "ALJ" decision and placing him on the Central Registry of Offenders
Against Individuals with Developmental Disabilities "Central Registry" 2,
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:6D-77. We affirm.
Docket No.: a4007-22
Decided: 2024-04-23
Caption: RIALTO-CAPITOL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. BALDWIN ASSETS ASSOCIATES URBAN RENEWAL COMPANY, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
In this construction-defect case, defendant Skyline Windows, LLC
Skyline appeals from an order denying its motion to enforce a settlement
agreement and dismiss the claims against it. Skyline contends the motion judge
erred in concluding Skyline was not included in the clause of the settlement
agreement in which plaintiff Rialto-Capitol Condominium Association, Inc.
released its claims against subcontractors "enrolled" in the contractor
consolidated insurance program CCIP of defendant general contractor Turner
Construction Company Turner. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.
Docket No.: a0323-22
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROSENDO S. GOMEZ-SERPAS
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Rosendo Gomez-Serpas appeals from an August 1, 2022 order
and written opinion issued by Judge John M. Deitch denying defendant's petition
for post-conviction relief PCR without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was
convicted at trial for murder and related weapons offenses. He claims his trial
attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of self-defense.
After carefully reviewing the record in light of the governing legal principles,
we affirm.
Docket No.: a0508-22
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: ROBIN NEWSOME VS. INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Robin Newsome appeals from the trial court's September 23,
2022 order granting summary judgment to defendant, Inspira Health Network,
Inc., and dismissing her complaint with prejudice. Because we agree with the
trial court's determination defendant was entitled to immunity, we affirm.
Docket No.: a1067-22
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: E.D.L.R. VS. R.R.V.-R.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
After remand, defendant appeals from the final restraining order FRO
entered against him under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A.
2C:25-17 to -35. Following our review of the first appeal, we affirmed the
court's finding of the predicate act of harassment but remanded for the court "to
provide a more comprehensive statement of [its] findings of fact and conclusions
of law as to whether plaintiff needs an FRO for her protection under the second
prong of Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 126 App. Div. 2006." E.D.L.R.
v. R.R.V.-R., No. A-0074-21 App. Div. Oct. 6, 2022 slip op. at 2
italicization omitted.
On remand, the court issued a comprehensive oral decision on November
3, 2022, concluding plaintiff required an FRO for her protection and entering an
FRO. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the court in its
November 3, 2022 decision.
Docket No.: a1710-22
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: DAVID HOOK, ET AL. VS. BOHDAN SENYSZYN, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Bohdan Senyszyn appeals from a November 10, 2022 order
denying his Rule 4:50-1 motion for relief from a November 5, 2021 order
confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of plaintiffs David Hook and
Modern Method Development, Inc. We affirm.
Docket No.: a1740-22
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: ESTATE OF ALFREDO PABATAO, ET AL. VS. PALISADES MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Estate of Alfredo Pabatao, by its Administratrix Angela Pabatao,
and Estate of Susana Pabatao, by its Administratrix Angela Pabatao, appeal from
trial court orders dated January 6, 2023, denying their motion to amend their
complaint and dismissing their matter with prejudice.1 We reverse and remand.
We glean the facts and procedural history from the motion record. In July
2021, plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking survival and wrongful death damages
against defendants. The complaint asserted Alfredo2 died on March 26, 2020,
and Susana died on March 30, 2020, "due to the C[ovid]-19 virus." The
complaint alleged defendants, plaintiffs' employers, caused plaintiffs to become
infected with the Covid-19 virus, and suffer injury, death, and damages.
Docket No.: a1763-22
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMIE CATELLI
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Jamie Catelli appeals from the Law Division's January 3, 2023
order denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Following our review of
the record and the applicable legal principles, we affirm.
Docket No.: a2233-22
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: BROCK H. SACKSTEIN VS. KRISTA A. KUKIS
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
In this non-dissolution matter, defendant Krista Kukis appeals from a
March 7, 2023 order denying her application for child support. We reverse and
remand the order for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Docket No.: a3359-21
Decided: 2024-04-22
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DELSHON J. TAYLOR JR.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
After we granted the State leave to appeal the trial court's order
suppressing evidence because it was recovered following an illegal stop, we
remanded for the court to apply the factors cited in State v. Williams Williams
I, 192 N.J. 1, 15 2007. State v. Taylor, No. A-3303-18 App. Div. Aug. 28,
2019 slip op. at 9-10. On remand, the court considered the Williams I factors
and denied defendant's suppression motion. Defendant appeals from the
suppression order and the court's order upholding the prosecutor's denial of a
waiver of the mandatory minimum Graves Act 1 sentence. We affirm.
Docket No.: a0677-22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: MICHAEL BENT VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Michael Bent appeals from a September 16, 2022 final agency
decision FAD by the Board of Trustees Board of the Police and Firemen's
Retirement System, which denied his application for accidental disability
retirement ADR benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7a1. We affirm.
Docket No.: a0901-22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: JANUSZ KADZIELAWA VS. MARIA KADZIELAWA
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
This post-judgment divorce appeal comes back to us following our prior
decision remanding to the Family Part on the limited issue of counsel fees. We
determined that the judge failed to require the parties to submit up-to-date case
information statements CIS in order to assess each party's relative financial
circumstances, and did not make specific findings as to the pertinent Rule 5:3-
5c factors.
Docket No.: a1688-22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: JOSE DALUZ VS. HORACIO PEREIRA, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendants Horacio Pereira and Horatio Associates Corp. appeal from a
December 30, 2022, Law Division order confirming an April 12, 2022,
arbitration award out of time and entering judgment in the amount of 100,000
in favor of plaintiff, Jose Daluz. We affirm.
Docket No.: a2286-22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: CARLA MARTINEZ VS. MID-AMERICA, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
Docket No.: a2302-22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY, ETC. VS. ANGELA M. CATALFAMO, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
We have been advised prior to argument that this matter has been amicably
adjusted and the parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
Docket No.: a2649-21
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALFONSO BOWEN, JR.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Following adverse decisions on various pretrial motions, defendant
Alfonso Bowen, Jr. pled guilty to four offenses charged in four indictments
pursuant to the terms of a global plea agreement. Pertinent to this appeal,
defendant pled guilty to fourth-degree aggravated assault by pointing a firearm,
N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b4, as amended from second-degree unlawful possession of
a weapon without a carrying permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b1, charged in count
one of Hudson County Indictment No. 19-11-1200, and was sentenced to a five-
year prison term with a five-year parole disqualifier under the Graves Act,
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c. The remaining seventeen offenses charged in the same
indictment primarily included drug and weapons offenses, and were dismissed
on the State's motion.
Docket No.: a2763-22
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: DCPP VS. S.Z.K., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF D.D.M.M. AND S.A.H.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant D.M. appeals the Family Part's April 24, 2023 final judgment
terminating his parental rights to his biological daughter, D.D.M.M. "Dawn".1
Dawn's mother, S.Z.K., entered an identified surrender of Dawn and does not
take part in this appeal. Because the trial court correctly applied the law, and
substantial credible evidence supports its findings, we affirm.
Docket No.: a3101-21
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EVENS DUMAS
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Evens Dumas appeals from an April 29, 2022 order denying
his petition for post-conviction relief PCR without an evidentiary hearing. We
affirm.
Docket No.: a3129-21
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: BRENDA AZANEDO VS. ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
FIRKO, J.A.D.
In this employment matter, plaintiff Brenda Azanedo appeals from a May
13, 2022 Law Division order dismissing her amended complaint against
defendants Alaris Health at Castle Hill Alaris, Janet Robinson, and Margot
Domingo, on summary judgment. We affirm.
Docket No.: a3290-21
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: THOMAS NUSCIS VS. JOHN KEE, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from the Law Division's dismissal of his civil rights
complaint against the Division of Taxation Division and one of its employees.
The Law Division applied the entire controversy doctrine ECD to reach its
conclusion. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the dismissal, but on
different grounds than the trial court. See Brown v. Brown, 470 N.J. Super. 457,
463 App. Div. 2022 noting "we review orders and not opinions".
Specifically, we affirm the state's motion to dismiss because we find a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Docket No.: a3777-21
Decided: 2024-04-19
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JERMAINE BRYANT
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Jermaine L. Bryant appeals from the Law Division's March 26,
2021 order denying his motion for ballistics testing. We affirm.
Docket No.: a0636-22
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: JN EQUITY PERTH AMBOY, LLC VS. JIMMY HIRALDO
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Appellant JN Equity Perth Amboy, LLC "JN Equity", appeals from the
September 12, 2022 order dismissing its complaint seeking a judgment of
possession against respondent Jimmy Hiraldo. Following our review of the
record and applicable legal principles, we affirm.
Docket No.: a0927-22
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: DCPP VS. R.S., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF A.A., C.A., AND B.A.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant F.A.1 appeals from the February 22, 2022 Family Part order
finding he abused or neglected his three minor daughters, A.A., C.A., and B.A.,
under Title 9, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21c4b, through the "infliction of excessive
corporal punishment." The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and
Permanency DCPP and the Law Guardians representing A.A., C.A., and B.A.
seek affirmance. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the judge's
fact-finding decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence and is
consistent with the applicable well-settled law. We affirm.
Docket No.: a0950-22
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: D.Q. VS. F.Q.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff D.Q. appeals from a September 28, 2022 amended final
restraining order AFRO, which denied her application for sole custody and
termination of defendant F.Q.'s parenting time, finding no change in
circumstances. Following our review of the record and applicable legal
standards, we affirm.
Docket No.: a1729-22
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TONY CANTY
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Tony Canty appeals from the trial court's order denying his
petition for post-conviction relief PCR based on ineffective assistance of trial
and appellate counsel without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant collaterally
challenges his conviction of multiple counts of first-degree robbery and weapons
offenses. He was ultimately sentenced, after remand, to an aggregate thirty-
five-year term, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR COUNSEL'S
FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE HIS
CASE PRIOR TO TRIAL.
A. APPLICABLE LAW.
B. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR
FAILING TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE
DEFENDANT'S CASE WHICH RESULTED IN
THE JURY BEING TAINTED BY EVIDENCE
WRONGFULLY ENTERED AGAINST HIS
INTEREST FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE
TRIAL.
POINT II
DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY APPELLATE
COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO CHALLENGE THE
WRONGFUL DENIAL OF HIS SEVERANCE
MOTION BECAUSE A JOINT TRIAL PREDICATED
ANY PLEA OFFER TO INCLUDE TESTIMONY
AGAINST HIS CO-DEFENDANT RESULTING IN
DEFENDANT BEING FORCED TO OFFER FALSE
TESTIMONY Not Raised Below.
POINT III
DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR [PCR] SHOULD
NOT BE TIME[-]BARRED BECAUSE
DEFENDANT'S DELAY IN FILING WAS DUE TO
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AND THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE REQUIRE HIS CLAIMS BE HEARD.
We affirm.
Docket No.: a2064-21
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. M.A.U.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant M.A.U.1 appeals from his convictions of two counts of sexual
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c3; and one count of endangering the welfare of a
child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a1 following a jury trial. We affirm.
Docket No.: a2499-22a2500-22_0
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: R.H. VS. N.S., N.S. VS. R.H.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Appellant N.S.1 appeals from February 23, 2023 Family Part orders
entering a domestic violence final restraining order FRO against him and
denying his application for an FRO against his wife, R.H. The mutual domestic
violence complaints were tried together. We heard oral argument on these
appeals back-to-back and now consolidate them for the purpose of issuing a
single opinion. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the governing
legal principles, we affirm the FRO entered against N.S. Because the trial court
did not make specific findings on whether N.S. needs an FRO for his protection,
we remand for the trial court to consider the second prong under Silver and
determine whether R.H. requires an FRO for his safety. See Silver v. Silver,
387 N.J. Super. 112, 125-27 App. Div. 2006.
Docket No.: a3971-21
Decided: 2024-04-18
Caption: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF 68-72 FRANKLIN PLACE, LLC, ET AL. VS. NEW JERSEY AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Appellants 68-72 Franklin Place, LLC Franklin and The Village
Courtyard Condominium Association Association appeal from the July 13,
2022 final agency decision of the Board of Public Utilities BPU denying
without an evidentiary hearing their petition for relief from the tariff rate
respondent New Jersey American Water Company NJAW charged them for
water service at a residential development. We affirm.
Docket No.: a0030-23
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: DCPP VS. M.P. AND D.S., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.J.P.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant D.S. David1 appeals from a judgment of guardianship
terminating his parental rights to his biological son L.J.P. Luke, born in 2016.2
Defendant M.P. Mary, Luke's biological mother, surrendered her parental
rights to Luke, and is not a party to this appeal. 3 Judge Michael Paul Wright
convened the guardianship trial and rendered an oral opinion. David argues the
Division of Child Protection and Permanency Division failed to establish by
clear and convincing evidence the statutory four-prong best interests test under
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a. David contends the judge erred in failing to correctly
consider and apply the July 2, 2021 statutory amendments to the Kinship Legal
Guardianship KLG Act 4 and avers the judge disregarded the Legislature's
intent by giving weight to the resource parents' wishes to adopt and not
protecting his parental rights. David also asserts the judge erred by not
exploring KLG as an alternative to termination of his parental rights.
Docket No.: a0349-22
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAu0027RON D. HOWARD
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Da'Ron Howard appeals from an order of August 11, 2021
denying his petition for post-conviction relief PCR. However, the contentions
in his appellate brief focus on PCR counsel's conduct rather than the trial court's
order and decision. Since the record on appeal is insufficient to enable this court
to review these contentions, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.
Docket No.: a0621-22
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: BRAINBUILDERS, LLC VS. OPTUM, INC., ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff BrainBuilders, LLC appeals from a September 12, 2022 order
granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Optum, Inc., Optum
Services, Inc., OptumHealth Holdings, LLC, OptumHealth Financial Services,
Inc., OptumHealthcare Solutions, LLC, OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc.
Optum entities, Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., Oxford Health Plans NY,
Inc., Oxford Health Plans NJ, Inc., Oxford Health Plans LLC Oxford entities,
UnitedHealthcare Services, LLC, UnitedHealth Group, Inc., UnitedHealthcare
Services, Inc., UHIC Holdings, Inc., United Behavioral Health, and
UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company UHC entities collectively, defendants.
We affirm.
Docket No.: a1062-22
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: BONA PACKAGING, INC. VS. KEVIN INGRALDI, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendants Kevin Ingraldi Ingraldi, B.I. Foods, LLC B.I., and RKW
Holdings, LLC RKW1 appeal from an October 7, 2022 final judgment in the
amount of 65,750.17 entered in favor of plaintiff Bona Packaging, Inc. as to
principal and interest owed for deliveries of packaging products. After careful
review of the record, we affirm.
Docket No.: a1189-22
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL. VS. HEXCEL CORPORATION, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the
Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
collectively, the DEP, appeal from the Law Division's August 19, 2022 order
dismissing without prejudice the DEP's complaint against defendants Hexcel
Corporation and Fine Organics Corporation. Because the trial court mistakenly
found the complaint was barred by a prior consent judgment between the parties,
we reverse and remand.
Docket No.: a1781-22
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: B.D. VS. SUSSEX COUNTY PROSECUTORu0027S OFFICE
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff, B.D., appeals from the Law
Division's order dismissing his complaint, in which he sought to obtain proceeds
forfeited to the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office SCPO in a related health
care insurance fraud case. Based upon our review of the record and applicable
law, we affirm.
Docket No.: a3162-21
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: AJACO TOWING, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Ajaco Towing, Inc. Ajaco appeals from the May 12, 2022
final agency decision of the Division of State Police NJSP removing Ajaco
from the NJSP towing rotation list for 2021-2022. We affirm.
Docket No.: a3838-21
Decided: 2024-04-17
Caption: R.R. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner R.R. appeals from the June 14, 2022 final agency decision of
the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance
and Health Services "Division" denying his application for retroactive
Medicaid benefits for June, July, and August 2021. Based on our review of the
record and applicable legal standards, we affirm.
Docket No.: a0765-22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: JOEY CUTRI VS. TEC-CAST, INC., ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendants Tec-Cast, Inc., Tec-Cast, Lynne Biss, and Robert
Morehardt, Jr. appeal from a final judgment after a jury trial. We affirm.
Docket No.: a1084-23
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: JILL DEVITO, ET AL. VS. 151 ROUTE 72, LLC, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
On leave granted, appellants IME Plus IMEP and IMEP's CEO Doreen
Nisivoccia appeal from the trial court's October 6, 2023 order denying their
motion to quash plaintiffs Jill and Leonard DeVito's Subpoena Duces Tecum
and the court's October 6, 2023 order granting plaintiffs' motion to enforce
litigants' rights. Because we find the trial court misapplied the law and abused
its discretion in finding the subpoenas were not unduly burdensome, we reverse
the trial court's orders.
Docket No.: a1316-21
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: VERONICA
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Veronica Storley Williams appeals from a November 18, 2021
final determination by the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees'
Retirement System "PERS" denying her petition to reopen her expired account
so that funds and service credit could be transferred to the Police and Firemen's
Retirement System "PFRS". We affirm.
Docket No.: a1684-22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GEORGE RAYFORD
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant George Rayford appeals from an October 28, 2022 order
denying his petition for post-conviction relief PCR. We affirm.
We glean the facts and procedural history from the record. Defendant
pleaded guilty to three counts of strict liability drug induced death, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-9a. As part of the plea deal, the State agreed to recommend defendant's
sentence not exceed thirteen years imprisonment on each count, subject to the
"No Early Release Act" NERA, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, to run concurrently, and
the dismissal of the remaining ten counts of the indictment.
Docket No.: a2313-22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: MICHAEL LEWIS VS. AUDREY GARDNER-SCHILLER
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant-tenant Audrey Gardner-Schiller appeals from a February 21,
2023 Special Civil Part judgment enforcing a settlement agreement reached with
plaintiff-landlord Michael Lewis awarding 13,833 in back rent and costs. We
affirm.
Docket No.: a2514-22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: IN THE MATTER OF TYRELL BAGBY, CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Tyrell Bagby, a former sergeant with the Camden County Police
Department, appeals from a March 15, 2023 final Civil Service Commission
decision upholding his termination. The Commission accepted and adopted the
factual findings and legal conclusions of an administrative law judge ALJ, who
recommended a suspension and demotion in rank. Citing the ALJ's factual
findings, the Commission found progressive discipline was not appropriate in
view of the seriousness of the offense, despite Bagby's unblemished disciplinary
record. Because we conclude Bagby failed to demonstrate the Commission's
final decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, see In re Virtua-West
Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 2008, we
affirm.
Docket No.: a3599-21
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: CHANDRA JATAMONI VS. KAVITHA DANDU
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial case, defendant Kavitha Dandu appeals
from orders entered on June 28, and July 21, 2022 by Judge Gerald J. Council.
Finding no merit in defendant's arguments, we affirm.
Docket No.: a3603-22
Decided: 2024-04-16
Caption: HELEN CIGARROA VS. TOWN OF HARRISON, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Helen Cigarroa appeals from an August 27, 2021 order granting
summary judgment in favor of defendant Town of Harrison Harrison, and
dismissing her complaint with prejudice. We affirm, substantially for the
reasons set forth in Judge Christine M. Vanek's thoughtful and comprehensive
oral opinion.
Docket No.: a0264-22
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: ABEER A. ABU-GOUSH VS. ABDALLAH A. ABU-ZUBEDAH
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Abdallah A. Abu-Zubedah, self-represented, appeals from an
October 18, 2021 order entering a default judgment of divorce against him on
the grounds of extreme cruelty and a February 18, 2022 order denying his motion
to vacate default judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm both orders.
Docket No.: a1144-22
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: OPTIONS IMAGINED, ETC. VS. PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS TOWNSHIP
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
In this one-sided appeal, defendant Parsippany-Troy Hills Township
Township challenges an October 31, 2022 Tax Court order denying its motion
for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to plaintiff Options
Imagined, a NJ Nonprofit Corporation Options, thereby allowing Options a
charitable property tax exemption on its two-bedroom condominium unit
Subject Property for tax years 2020 through 2022. We affirm, substantially
for the reasons expressed by Judge Vito L. Bianco in his thoughtful and thorough
published opinion. Options Imagined v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Twp., 33 N.J.
Tax 129 Tax 2022.
Docket No.: a1309-22
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: H AND H MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC. VS. MARK TOMEI, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff H and H Manufacturing Company HH appeals two Law
Division orders resulting in the dismissal of its claims against defendants Mark
Tomei Mark and the Estate of Vincent Tomei Vincent. 3 It first challenges
an October 12, 2022 order that granted in part defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed with prejudice all but one count of the complaint .
Docket No.: a2474-22
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: CLARA D. MARADIAGA, ET AL. VS. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Clara Maradiaga appeals from an April 14, 2023 order granting
defendant Progressive Insurance Company Progressive summary judgment
and dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
Docket No.: a2496-22
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: ROBERT EDWARDS VS. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PLAINFIELD, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Robert F. Edwards appeals pro se from the Law Division's March
10, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Housing
Authority of Plainfield and Executive Director Randall Wood for failure to serve
a timely notice of tort claim pursuant to the Tort Claims Act "TCA", N.J.S.A.
59:8-1 to 8-11, and denying his motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Based on our review of the record and the applicable principles of law, we
affirm.
Docket No.: a2498-22
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: HARRY VANWAGENEN, ET AL. VS. FORTRESS FENCE, LLC, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Harry Vanwagenen and Ann B. Vanwagenen appeal from a
February 28, 2023 order granting a default judgment against defendants Fortress
Fence, LLC Fortress, Citadel Custom Citadel, Michael Carhart, and Michael
Havekost and a March 31, 2023 order denying their motion for reconsideration
of the judgment. Plaintiffs argue the court erred by denying their request to also
enter the February 28, 2023 order for default judgment against defendant Diane
L. Carhart. Unpersuaded by plaintiffs' arguments concerning entry of the default
judgment, and because plaintiffs have abandoned any claim the court erred by
denying their reconsideration motion, we affirm.
Docket No.: a2629-21
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: NAGLA ABOUELENEIN VS. NABIL SABBAHI
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
The parties divorced following an almost thirty-six-year marriage.
Defendant appeals provisions of the August 25, 2022 amended final judgment
of divorce AFJOD1 awarding equitable distribution of property in Egypt, the
parties' country of origin, to plaintiff and requiring him to pay pendente lite
arrears and plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs "attorney's fees". Defendant
contends the distribution of marital funds was not supported by credible
evidence in the record; the pendente lite award failed to credit payments he
made; and the attorney's fees award was an abuse of discretion. We disagree
and affirm substantially for the thoughtful reasons set forth in Family Part Judge
Andrea J. Sullivan's statement of reasons.
Docket No.: a3756-21
Decided: 2024-04-15
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. G.N.W.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
This case returns to us on a constitutional speedy trial issue. Defendant
G.N.W.1 appeals from a November 12, 2021 Law Division order on remand
denying his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on speedy trial
grounds. Because the motion judge did not make all the findings required in our
initial remand instructions, we are constrained to remand the case again to
complete the fact-finding needed to resolve defendant's constitutional claim.
Docket No.: a0183-22
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALCHANE MAYES
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief
PCR without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Docket No.: a0693-22
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: T.L. VS. J.D.S.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant J.D.S. appeals from a September 23, 2022 amended final
restraining order FRO entered against him, and in favor of his wife, plaintiff
T.L., pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act PDVA, N.J.S.A.
2C:25-17 to -35. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his
request to consider a fifty-five-minute audio recording and certain photographs
at the FRO hearing and improperly concluded that plaintiff needed a FRO to
protect her from defendant. Based on our careful review of the record, we
conclude defendant has not shown the trial court's evidential rulings were an
abuse of discretion. Since plaintiff established the need for a FRO for her
protection from defendant, we affirm.
Docket No.: a0852-22
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: JUNGHI KIM VS. LOYOLA JESUIT CENTER, LOYOLA HOUSE OF RETREATS
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Junghi Kim appeals from the October 4, 2022 orders granting
defendant summary judgment and denying her cross-motion to amend her
complaint. We affirm.
Docket No.: a0955-23
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMARI HALL, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
By leave granted, the State appeals from an October 20, 2023 order
suppressing the warrantless seizure of physical evidence. For the reasons that
follow, we vacate the judge's suppression order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Docket No.: a1268-22
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: ANAND DASH, ET AL. VS. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, Anand Dash, appeals from a December 2, 2022 Law Division
order dismissing his prerogative writs complaint against defendants Township
of Sparta Zoning Board of Adjustment Zoning Board, Township of Sparta
Planning Board Planning Board, and Diamond Chip Realty, LLC DCR.
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint instead of
ruling he was entitled to review by the Zoning Board in accordance with our
holding in DePetro v. Township of Wayne Planning Board, 367 N.J. Super. 161
App. Div. 2004. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge
Stuart A. Minkowitz in his thorough and well-reasoned, twelve-page opinion
rendered on December 2, 2022.
Docket No.: a2503-19
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KIM A. CARTER
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
A Middlesex County grand jury charged defendant Kim A. Carter in a ten-
count superseding indictment with first-degree murder count one; second-
degree unlawful possession of a weapon count two; second-degree possession
of a weapon for an unlawful purpose count three; third-degree possession of a
controlled dangerous substance CDS with intent to distribute counts four and
seven; third-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute counts five
and eight; third-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute within
1,000 feet of school property counts six and nine; and third-degree financial
facilitation count ten. Prior to trial, the court denied defendant's motion to
sever counts one through three from counts four through ten.
Docket No.: a2539-21
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: CHERYL FIORE VS. RAYMOND FIORE
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, defendant Raymond Fiore
appeals from the February 14, March 3, and March 16, 2022 Family Part orders
granting plaintiff Cheryl Fiore's motion to recalculate child support following
termination of her term alimony and awarding her counsel fees in the amount of
2,380. The judge denied defendant's cross-motion to mediate the parties' issues
based on his interpretation of the marital settlement agreement MSA
incorporated into the judgment of divorce JOD, request for increased parenting
time, for the appointment of an employability expert to evaluate plaintiff, and
for counsel fees.
Docket No.: a3175-21
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: MARK J. NAUGHTON VS. COUNTY OF CAMDEN, ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Mark J. Naughton, formerly employed by the County of Camden
as an officer with the Camden County Police Department collectively,
defendants, appeals from a May 13, 2022 Law Division order dismissing his
breach of contract complaint on summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiff argues
the motion judge erroneously determined the parties modified their settlement
agreement, and enforcement of the agreement would violate public policy.
Docket No.: a3437-22
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: DCPP VS. E.K. AND C.D., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.L.D.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant C.D.1 is the biological father of K.L.D., born in June 2020.
Defendant appeals from the June 22, 2023 judgment of guardianship terminating
his parental rights to the child. 2 Defendant contends the Division of Child
Protection and Permanency Division failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence. The Law Guardian supports
the termination on appeal as it did before the trial court.
Docket No.: a0214-22
Decided: 2024-04-11
Caption: LUISA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS. ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Luisa Rodriguez, Luis Rodriguez, and Belkys Rodriguez
collectively referred to as plaintiffs appeal from a September 8, 2022
Chancery Division order denying plaintiffs' request for partition of a two-
family residential home the Property owned in title by their brother,
defendant Enrique Rodriguez, in which their stepfather, Ceferino De La Cruz,
resides. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Bruno
Mongiardo in his oral decision issued at the conclusion of a bench trial.
Docket No.: a2413-21a1371-22
Decided: 2024-04-11
Caption: DCPP VS. M.N., J.L.K. AND W.L., IN THE MATTER OF W.N.-L. AND I.N.-K., ET AL.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
Docket No.: a3112-21
Decided: 2024-04-11
Caption: STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TROY BUNERO
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant Troy Bunero, a former supervisor in the North Bergen
Department of Public Works DPW, was indicted on February 20, 2014, for his
role in a scheme diverting DPW resources for private use. The nine-count
indictment included a count for third-degree theft by unlawful taking or
disposition, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a and 2C:2-6, alleging defendant "knowingly did
unlawfully take or exercise unlawful control over the movable property of
[DPW], including tools, equipment, vehicles, and employee services, including,
but not limited to" by directing DPW employees to "work on one or more
election campaigns" and perform work on defendant's home, his co-defendant's
car, and another DPW supervisor's home, "for which they were paid for regular
or overtime hours by [DPW]."
Docket No.: a3818-21
Decided: 2024-04-11
Caption: P.W.B. VS. T.R.B.
Status: Unpublished
Summary:
PER CURIAM
Defendant, T.R.B. "Tara",1 appeals from two family court orders. The
first is a March 14, 2022 supplemental order 2 in which the trial court determined
the amount of plaintiff P.W.B. "Peter's" child support obligation and granted
his request for counsel fees and costs against Tara. The second is a July 14,
2022 order in which the trial court denied Tara's motion for reconsideration of
the March 14, 2022 order, request to modify child support, and Peter's request
for counsel fees in connection to Tara's motion. Having reviewed the
contentions in light of the facts and applicable law, we find no error in the trial
court's orders, and accordingly affirm.
Docket No.: 010253-23-yawarsyvdi
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: YAWAR SYED V DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION
Summary:
This letter opinion sets forth the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law on Director,
Division of Taxation's “Defendant” or “Division” R. 4:64 motion for summary judgment
dismissing the Complaint as untimely.
Docket No.: 011113-2019
Decided: 2024-04-12
Caption: Solix Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
Summary: