Supreme Court Opinions

The dictates of Jerista apply to the facts presented here. The res ipsa inference of negligence is applicable because common experience instructs that elevator doors -- however complex their operation may be -- ordinarily should not strike a person entering or exiting an elevator in the absence of negligence. To warrant the inference, plaintiff had no obligation to exclude other possible causes that might explain the malfunctioning of the elevator doors or to show that defendants were on notice of some defect in the doors’ operation.

The Court reverses Alex’s delinquency adjudication on state-law grounds, concluding that the video-recorded statement did not possess a sufficient probability of trustworthiness to justify its introduction at trial under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27). Striking the juvenile’s recorded statement from the record does not leave sufficient evidence in the record to support, on any rational basis, the adjudication of delinquency against Alex. Accordingly, the sexual assault charge must be dismissed. The Court concludes that the incompetency proviso of the present version of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27) is flawed and remands that rule for review to the Supreme Court Committee on the Rules of Evidence.

The panel erred in its application of the “plain feel” doctrine. Officer Laboy had witnessed “hundreds” of instances where defendants concealed contraband in the front of their pants and therefore immediately recognized the “rocklike” substance he felt to be similar to crack cocaine. Between the officer’s experience-derived identification of the substance and the presence of $2000 in cash, the “plain feel” exception -- which the Court adopts -- applied.

New Jersey law on the allocation of liability among insurers applies in this matter, and the Court sets forth the pertinent choice-of-law principles to resolve this dispute over insurance coverage for numerous products-liability claims. Concerning the second question, on these facts, the Court also affirms the determination to follow the unavailability exception to the continuous-trigger method of allocation set forth in Owens-Illinois.

The Borough’s zoning officer did not adhere to the precise statutory procedures for processing Harz’s appeal, and the Court does not take issue with Harz’s claims that the Borough could have responded in a more efficient way to her objections. In the end, however, Harz has not established that the Borough denied her the right to be heard before the Planning Board. She therefore cannot demonstrate that she was deprived of a substantive right protected by the Civil Rights Act.

There is no obligation to send Rice notices here, where the Board determined from the start to conduct its discussion about faculty reappointments in public session. Turning to the release of meeting minutes, the delay that occurred is unreasonable no matter the excuses advanced by the Board, but the Court modifies the Appellate Division’s holding requiring the Board to set a regular meeting schedule.

The plain language of the MLUL defines an “application for development” as the application form and all accompanying documents required by ordinance.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-3. Because Dunbar’s application lacked many of the documents required by the Ordinance, the application was not complete upon submission and does not benefit from the TOA Rule.

The DNA-tolling exception applies only when the State obtains DNA evidence that directly matches the defendant to physical evidence of a crime. In Jones, the State presented sufficient evidence of a continuing course of conduct to survive the motion to dismiss.

The DNA-tolling exception applies only when the State obtains DNA evidence that directly matches the defendant to physical evidence of a crime. In Jones, the State presented sufficient evidence of a continuing course of conduct to survive the motion to dismiss.

The language of Section 26.1 is plain and unambiguous. It became effective years after J.V. was waived to adult court. The Court concludes the Legislature intended the statute to apply prospectively to those juvenile waiver hearings conducted after the statute became effective. The statute does not apply to J.V.

The CJRA -- like the federal and D.C. laws on which it is based in part -- provides defendants a qualified right to summon adverse witnesses. Before calling an adverse witness, a defendant must proffer how the witness’s testimony would tend to negate probable cause or undermine the State’s evidence in support of detention in a material way.

Neither exigency nor the hot pursuit doctrine justified the officers’ warrantless entry here. However, defendant’s brother’s actions did not constitute state action and were sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful police conduct to preclude application of the exclusionary rule to the evidence.

Mount has proven, under requirements established in case law construing N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(1), that he experienced a terrifying or horror-inducing event and that the event was undesigned and unexpected. The Court remands to the Appellate Division panel to decide Mount’s claim that his mental disability was a direct result of that incident. Martinez has not demonstrated that the incident that caused his disability was undesigned and unexpected and therefore is not entitled to accidental disability benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7.

Mount has proven, under requirements established in case law construing N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(1), that he experienced a terrifying or horror-inducing event and that the event was undesigned and unexpected. The Court remands to the Appellate Division panel to decide Mount’s claim that his mental disability was a direct result of that incident. Martinez has not demonstrated that the incident that caused his disability was undesigned and unexpected and therefore is not entitled to accidental disability benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7.

The Federal and State Ex Post Facto Clauses bar the retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment to defendants’ CSL violations. The 2014 Amendment retroactively increased the punishment for defendants’ earlier committed sex offenses by enhancing the penalties for violations of the terms of their supervised release. The Amendment, therefore, is an ex post facto law that violates the Federal and State Constitutions as applied to defendants. The Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing defendants’ indictments.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Rothstadt’s well-reasoned opinion.

Courts are not required to analyze the Doe factors each time a party asserts that a privacy interest exists. A party must first present a colorable claim that public access to records would invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not reasonable to expect that details about a public auction of government property will remain private. OPRA calls for disclosure of records relating to the auction

Because significant questions exist concerning the extent of the notice actually provided, either by the Commissions or through their agents to active employees, former employees, and retirees, a hearing is necessary. The hearing is to be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in this opinion and, at the hearing, the adequacy of the content of the notice can be raised.

The single publication rule applies to an internet article. However, if a material and substantive change is made to the article’s defamatory content, then the modified article will constitute a republication, restarting the statute of limitations. In this case, there are genuine issues of disputed fact concerning whether Adelman made a material and substantive change to the original article, and the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the defamation action based on the single publication rule. However, the modified article is entitled to the protection of the fair report privilege. The article is a full, fair, and accurate recitation of a court-filed complaint. The trial court properly dismissed the defamation action, and on that basis the Court affirms the Appellate Division’s judgment

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Leone’s majority opinion