Published Appellate Court Opinions

In this action, the Attorney General and Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights alleged defendants violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, by asking a prospective tenant of an apartment if she was a Muslim, refusing to lease the apartment based on the prospective tenant's religion, and making statements concerning the gender of a Division on Civil Rights investigator posing as a prospective tenant. A jury returned a no-cause verdict on plaintiffs' claims. The court reverses and remands for a new trial.

The court determines the trial court erred by allowing cross-examination of the prospective tenant about her religious beliefs and the teachings of the Quran in violation of N.J.R.E. 610 and in derogation of the privilege embodied in N.J.R.E. 512. The court rejects defendants' argument the cross-examination was permissible because the prospective tenant "opened the door" to questions about her religious beliefs and the teachings of the Quran during her direct testimony.

The court also concludes the trial court abused its discretion by allowing cross-examination of the prospective tenant about the alleged use of the term "infidels" by Muslims to refer to individuals that do not practice Islam. The court finds the cross-examination testimony, which defendants relied on to attack the prospective tenant's credibility, inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 608.

The court also finds the trial court did not conduct a proper analysis of the admissibility of the available portions of one of the defendant's recorded interview with a news organization, during which the defendant spoke about his interactions with prospective tenant and his beliefs concerning Muslims. The trial court incorrectly determined the available recorded portions of the interview were inadmissible under the "rule of completeness" without conducting the required analysis for the admissibility of the available portions of the recorded interview under the standard established by the Court in State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390 (2015).

In this workers' compensation case, the court reverses an order dismissing with prejudice a claim petition and a motion for medical and temporary disability benefits. The court concludes the judge of compensation denied petitioner's due process rights by determining at the outset of case, and based solely on petitioner's affidavit supporting his motion for medical and temporary disability benefits, that petitioner was a "multiple liar" who lacked credibility. During the numerous subsequent proceedings in the matter, and without hearing any testimony from petitioner, the judge repeatedly found petitioner was a liar and, at one point, found petitioner's lack of credibility rendered it unnecessary to hear to any evidence on the merits of petitioner's claim. The court reverses the dismissal of the claim petition and denial of the motion for medical and temporary disability benefits, and remands for further proceedings before a different judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of divorce and an order denying reconsideration, the court rejected a trial judge's reliance on Gilligan v. Gilligan, 428 N.J. Super. 69 (Ch. Div. 2012), to the extent it held an award of social security disability to a spouse during the marriage was not sufficient to establish a party's inability to work for purposes of income imputation in the calculation of spousal and child support. The court held here that despite Gilligan's holding, the court continued to hew to its holding in Golian v. Golian, 344 N.J. Super. 337, 338-43 (App. Div. 2001), that when the Social Security Administration has determined a party is disabled, a presumption of disability is established and the burden shifts to the opposing party to refute that presumption

The court also rejected the trial judge's reliance on income averaging in her determination of whether a party was earning income commensurate with his or her earning capacity because the judge ignored current earnings and relied upon six years of income that were earned prior to the parties separating, which was more than five years before the trial date. The court held that the judge on remand should use the years prior to the trial when determining earning capacity.Finally, the court concluded that the trial judge also improperly deviated from the Child Support Guidelines by relying on the elimination of parenting time in the final judgment of divorce. The court concluded that because the amount of parenting time is an element of the Child Support Guidelines, a reduction based on elimination of parenting time did not support a finding of an injustice warranting a downward deviation in support.

In this case of first impression, the court examines the meaning of a "dating relationship" under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, where the parties never experienced a traditional, in-person "date." Instead, their relationship was demonstrated by the intensity and content of their communications, including the exchange of nearly 1300 highly personal text messages.

Acknowledging the prevalence of virtual communications in today's society, especially in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court recognized text messaging and other forms of electronic communication enable rapid yet deep interactions at all hours. Those communications can form bonds that may be no less intimate than traditional dating activities.

The court concluded the proliferate and exceedingly intimate communications between the parties in the present matter constituted a dating relationship within the meaning of the Act and supported entry of the final restraining order.

In these consolidated appeals, the court is asked to determine whether two sentences imposed on convicted sexual offender R.K. for violating a New Jersey Parole Board regulation imposing a Community Supervision for Life (CSL) condition banning the use of the Internet to access social media are unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. The trial judge denied R.K.'s motions to correct his illegal sentences finding the ban did not violate his constitutional rights of free speech. Because the court concludes the blanket social media prohibition is both unconstitutional on its face based on Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017), and as applied to R.K. based on J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J. 204 (2017) and K.G. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 458 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2019), the trial court's rulings are reversed, and the court remands for: (1) resentencing to remove the 2007 CSL condition prohibiting R.K. from accessing social networking on the Internet without the express authorization of the District Parole Supervisor; and (2) allowing R.K. to withdraw his September 2012 guilty plea for violating the terms of his CSL condition prohibiting him from accessing social networking.

In this opinion, the court addresses the novel issue of whether a firearms toolmark identification expert's use of untested three-dimensional (3D) computer imaging technology known as BULLETTRAX, in conjunction with the traditional technique of comparing evidence and test bullets using a comparison microscope, requires that a Frye1 hearing be held to establish the scientific reliability of the BULLETTRAX machine and related software.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the State's expert relied upon the BULLETTRAX technology and the images it produced in concluding that a bullet fragment taken from the murder victim likely came from a handgun later seized from defendant. In so ruling, the trial court made extensive factual and credibility findings pertaining to the expert's testimony about his use of the images, and its findings are entitled to deference on appeal.

Under these circumstances, the court holds that a Frye hearing was necessary to demonstrate the reliability of the computer images of the bullets produced by BULLETTRAX before the expert would be permitted to testify at trial.

In State v. North Beach 1003, LLC, 451 N.J. Super. 214, 223 (App. Div. 2017), this court held that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had the authority to "condemn private property to take perpetual easements for shore protection purposes" as part of the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project to reduce flooding in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. This court also held that "easements that allow for publicly funded beach protection projects can include public access and use." However, this court expressly did not extend its holding to properties that were protected from flooding by an existing revetment.

In these sixty-seven consolidated condemnation appeals, this court affirmed the trial judge's final judgments upholding DEP's taking of permanent easements where the properties were protected by the revetment. This court agreed with the trial judge's conclusions that DEP properly determined that the revetment provided insufficient protection, and that the taking was not the product of fraud, bad faith, or manifest abuse of power.

In State v. North Beach 1003, LLC, 451 N.J. Super. 214, 223 (App. Div. 2017), this court held that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had the authority to "condemn private property to take perpetual easements for shore protection purposes" as part of the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project to reduce flooding in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. This court also held that "easements that allow for publicly funded beach protection projects can include public access and use." However, this court expressly did not extend its holding to properties that were protected from flooding by an existing revetment.

In these sixty-seven consolidated condemnation appeals, this court affirmed the trial judge's final judgments upholding DEP's taking of permanent easements where the properties were protected by the revetment. This court agreed with the trial judge's conclusions that DEP properly determined that the revetment provided insufficient protection, and that the taking was not the product of fraud, bad faith, or manifest abuse of power.

In State v. North Beach 1003, LLC, 451 N.J. Super. 214, 223 (App. Div. 2017), this court held that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had the authority to "condemn private property to take perpetual easements for shore protection purposes" as part of the Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project to reduce flooding in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. This court also held that "easements that allow for publicly funded beach protection projects can include public access and use." However, this court expressly did not extend its holding to properties that were protected from flooding by an existing revetment.

In these sixty-seven consolidated condemnation appeals, this court affirmed the trial judge's final judgments upholding DEP's taking of permanent easements where the properties were protected by the revetment. This court agreed with the trial judge's conclusions that DEP properly determined that the revetment provided insufficient protection, and that the taking was not the product of fraud, bad faith, or manifest abuse of power.

Plaintiff alleged defendant violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42, by terminating his employment in retaliation for his opposition to defendant's requests that he make false statements concerning, and seek a baseless restraining order against, a co-employee in retaliation for the co-employee's filing of a complaint alleging defendant violated the LAD. The motion court granted defendant summary judgment, finding plaintiff did not present evidence establishing the prerequisite for a LAD retaliation claim under the Supreme Court's decision in Carmona v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc., 189 N.J. 354 (2007). More particularly, the motion court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate there was a good faith and reasonable basis for his co-employee's LAD complaint.

The court reverses the summary judgment order, finding Carmona's good faith and reasonable basis prerequisite for a LAD-retaliation claim applies to the protected activity under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) triggering the alleged retaliatory actions. Unlike the plaintiff in Carmona, plaintiff did not allege he was retaliated by engaging in the protected activity of filing a LAD complaint. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d). Instead, plaintiff alleged he was retaliated against for engaging in protected activity under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) by opposing "acts forbidden under" the LAD—defendant's requests he make false statements and obtain a baseless restraining order against the co-employee in retaliation for her filing of a LAD complaint. The court holds that to satisfy the Carmona prerequisite for his LAD retaliation claim, plaintiff was required to demonstrate he had a good faith and reasonable basis to oppose defendant's requests because he alleged that protected activity triggered the alleged retaliation against him.

These two appeals raise challenges to the use of the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS) to determine the risk of re-offense by persons who have been convicted of possessing or distributing child pornography. Defendants both pled guilty to second-degree endangering the welfare of a child by distributing child pornography in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(a)(iii). Following the completion of their custodial sentences, they were both found to pose a moderate risk of re-offense and were designated as Tier Two registrants under the Registration and Community Notification Laws, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, commonly known as Megan's Law.

The court rejected the applicability of the ongoing-storm rule, which arbitrarily relieves commercial landowners from any obligation to try to render their property safe while sleet or snow is falling. The court held a commercial landowner has a duty to take reasonable steps to render a public walkway abutting its property—covered by snow or ice—reasonably safe. The court imposed a duty of ordinary care and identified factors to consider when determining whether the landowner breached that duty, emphasizing that reasonableness is the polestar.

The spousal privilege prevents a spouse or partner in a civil union of the accused from testifying against the accused. N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17(2) and N.J.R.E. 501(2). One exception to the privilege is when "the accused is charged with an offense against the spouse or partner, a child of the accused or of the spouse or partner, or a child to whom the accused or the spouse or partner stands in the place of a parent." N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-17(2)(b) and N.J.R.E. 501(2)(b). The court in this opinion determines that the term "child" in the spousal privilege exception refers to an unemancipated child.

Defendant pled guilty to an accusation charging him with the third degree offense of strict liability vehicular homicide pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.3a.The State agreed to recommend probation conditioned on defendant serving 364 days in the county jail. Mitigating factor five, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1b(5), allows a judge to consider whether the victim's conduct induced or facilitated the commission of the crime. The trial judge held mitigating factor five was inapplicable in this case as a matter of law because N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.3d provides: "It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that the decedent contributed to his [or her] own death by reckless or negligent conduct." This court reverses and holds N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.3d does not preclude a judge from finding and applying mitigating factor five. This court remands the matter for resentencing because the record shows a basis to find mitigating factor five.

Defendant Amy Amzler filed a motion to enforce plaintiff Mark Amzler's alimony obligation, as required under the parties' 2009 matrimonial settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA included an anti- Lepis1 provision, which stated that a "voluntary reduction in income of either party" would not constitute a substantial change in circumstances for the purpose of reviewing the alimony obligation. Plaintiff opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion seeking to modify or terminate his alimony obligation, as he had recently retired, before reaching full retirement age, due to medical issues. The trial court terminated plaintiff's alimony obligation, applying N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(2), which governs the review of alimony awards where the obligor retires before reaching full retirement age.

As a matter of first impression, the court held that N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(2) applies only to alimony orders entered after the effective date of the 2014 amendments to the alimony statute. The court relied on Landers v. Landers, 444 N.J. Super. 315, 324 (App. Div. 2016), where it held that N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(1) applies only to alimony orders established after the effective date of the 2014 amendments. In construing the statute, the Landers court held that although subsection (j)(1) does not explicitly state that it applies only to orders or agreements established after the 2014 amendments, "the particular language used in subsection (j)(3) clarifies the Legislature's intent to apply (j)(1) only to orders entered after the amendments' effective date."2 Id. at 324. In the current matter, the court found that there was no sound basis to depart from its reasoning in Landers and that construing subsection (j)(2) consistent with its construction of subsection (j)(1) conforms to the Legislature's intent in enacting subsection (j). Thus, the court held that N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3), which governs the review of final alimony orders or agreements established before the effective date of the 2014 amendments to the alimony statute, is applicable to this case. Accordingly, the court vacated the orders under review and remanded the matter to the trial court to reconsider the parties' applications, applying the correct

1 Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).2 Subsection (j)(3) provides that it applies when "there is an existing final alimony order or enforceable written agreement established prior to the effective date of this act." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3).

provision of the statute and considering whether the anti-Lepis provision in the MSA prohibits a reduction of plaintiff's alimony obligation.

Following defendant's guilty plea for accepting a $300 bribe while employed with the Jersey City Tax Assessor's Office, the State filed a complaint and order to show cause seeking the complete forfeiture of defendant's pension benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1. Defendant principally argued that forfeiture of his entire pension (which he was already receiving) was an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 12 of the New Jersey Constitution.

The trial court concluded that defendant's federal conviction mandated a complete pension forfeiture and did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause as receipt of pension benefits was a contractual arrangement between a public employee and employer conditioned on rendering honorable service, as opposed to a property right, and thus did not constitute a fine. The court concludes, contrary to the trial court, that defendant's right to receive pension benefits was a property right and the total forfeiture of his pension was a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Although the trial court did not address whether the forfeiture was unconstitutionally excessive, the court concludes defendant's conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant a complete pension forfeiture and did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

For the first time in this appeal, the biological mother of a five-year-old child argues the judgment of guardianship, which terminated her parental rights, must be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial because the resource parent, with whom the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) placed the child, worked as a domestic violence liaison in the district office that was responsible to investigate and manage this case from its inception. At oral argument, this court requested supplemental briefs from the parties exclusively on this issue.

This court holds the DCPP violated the Conflict of Interest Law, N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 to -27, and the ethical standards and protocols promulgated by the Department of Children and Families in its Policy Manual when it failed to transfer this case to another regional office based on the resource parent's assignment as a domestic violence liaison. The Division's failure to take timely and effective action to address this material conflict of interest tainted the management of this case from its incepti.

Independent of this ethical transgression, the Family Part judge who presided over this trial did not: (1) make credibility findings regarding the biological mother's testimony, (2) identify which of the two psychologists who testified as expert witnesses he found more persuasive, or (3) incorporate the opinions offered by the experts in his analysis of the four statutory prongs in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). This court remands this matter for the judge to conduct a plenary hearing to determine whether reunification with her biological mother is in the child's best interest at this stage of her emotional, psychological, and cognitive development. The judge must assess what psychological and/or emotional harm the child may suffer if she were to be removed from the custody of the resource parent and returned to the physical custody of her biological mother.

Finally, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:13D-21(h), this court directs the Appellate Division Clerk's Office to forward a copy of this opinion to the State Ethics Commission Office.

The court holds that a career service employee who is disciplined by an appointing authority for violating the New Jersey State Policy Prohibiting Discrimination in the Workplace (State Policy), N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1, may not appeal directly to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), but instead must first appeal either in a departmental hearing or, if applicable, in accordance with the procedure in a collective negotiations agreement. The court interprets the plain language of N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.2(n) and N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.2(n)(3) to permit a direct appeal to the Commission from a finding an employee violated the State Policy only where no discipline is imposed.

Appellants filed for benefits under New Jersey's Medicaid — Aged, Blind and Disabled (ABD) program. Both were disabled and lived with other family members; each applicant's total "countable income" was below the federal poverty level (FPL) for a family of their size, but each applicant's individual Social Security Disability benefits exceeded the FPL for a family of one. The Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (the Division) applied N.J.A.C. 10:72-4.4(d)(1), which stated that an applicant was ineligible if his or her "countable income . . . exceed[ed] the poverty income guideline for one person[.]" The Division denied the applications.

The court held that the regulation did not violate the federal Medicaid statute, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, but did violate New Jersey's Medicaid statute, N.J.S.A. 30:4D-1 to -19.5, which defines a "qualified applicant" as, among other things, a disabled individual "whose income does not exceed 100% of the [FPL], adjusted for family size," N.J.S.A. 30:4D-3(i)(11), and defines FPL as "the official poverty level based on family size[.]" N.J.S.A. 30:4D-3(p).