Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a middle school student, was injured while playing in a student-teacher fundraising basketball game. She appeals from an order granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims against defendants, who were her school, the school board, and a teacher. The court affirms because the undisputed facts establish that defendants did not breach a duty of care to plaintiff.

School officials have a duty to supervise the children in their care. Here, there was no showing of a breach of that duty because the basketball game was officiated by a referee and additional supervision was provided by approximately five teachers who did not participate in the game. Moreover, there were no facts showing that the game was being conducted in a reckless or out-of-control manner.

"[T]he duty of care applicable to participants in informal recreational sports is to avoid the infliction of injury caused by reckless or intentional conduct." Schick v. Ferolito, 167 N.J. 7, 12 (2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494, 497 (1994)). Here, there was no showing that the teacher-player was intentionally trying to injure plaintiff or acting recklessly.

The Court has significant concerns about the procedure followed in this case. Neither the script set forth on the Miranda card nor the detective’s statement to defendant addressed whether defendant agreed to waive his rights before answering questions. However, any error in the trial court’s admission of the statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State presented overwhelming independent evidence of defendant’s guilt. And, although the State should have moved to dismiss the charges on which the jury had deadlocked before the court considered evidence relevant to those charges, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying three aggravating factors to impose an extended-term sentence at the high end of the statutory range.

The trial judge terminated the parents' rights, relying upon representations that the grandmother and great aunt were each committed to adopting the children. On appeal, the parents argued the record contained ambiguous hearsay statements by those resource relatives, which arguably indicated they were amenable to or might prefer a kinship legal guardianship ("KLG") arrangement over adoption.

This court upheld most of the trial judge's decision on the statutory factors for termination, but remanded to clarify the record with respect to whether the grandmother and great aunt respectively preferred KLG over adoption.The court construed the policies of the Kinship Legal Guardianship Act, N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -7, and the Kinship Legal Guardianship Notification Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-89 to -92, to make relevant a resource parent’s preferences as between adoption and KLG. The resource parent's consent to adopt the children in lieu of KLG must be adequately informed, as well as unambiguous, unequivocal, and unconditional.

Defendant New Jersey Manufacturers appeals an order requiring it to reimburse an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) for a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code. The Department of Banking and Insurance's medical fee schedule listed the designation "N-1" for this CPT code, meaning it could be performed at an ASC but was "not separately reimbursable because the service [was] included in another procedure." In accord with N.J. Manufacturers Ins. Co. v. Specialty Surgical Center, 458 N.J. Super. 63 (App. Div. 2019), the court holds that the insurer was not required to reimburse the ASC for this CPT code, even though Medicare would permit reimbursement, because the Department's fee schedule did not list any payment amount for the code.

The Court defers to the trial judge’s determination that the disputed footage was played for the jury during the State’s case-in-chief and notes that defense counsel consented to the admission of the surveillance footage depicting the moments surrounding the shooting, including the video segment at issue. The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to play the video segment during his closing remarks, and the prosecutor’s comments were reasonable and fair inferences supported by the evidence presented at trial.

With two limited exceptions, this court upheld the validity of an Ordinance enacted by the City of Newark, which created a civilian complaint review board (CCRB) in response to an alarming "pattern or practice of constitutional violations" by the Newark Police Department. First, the Ordinance improperly required the Chief of Police to accept the CCRB's findings of fact, absent clear error; and second, it allowed for disclosure of complainant and police officer identities. The practical impact of upholding the Ordinance means that the CCRB can function as intended – providing a vital oversight role – by investigating alleged police misconduct, conducting hearings, developing a disciplinary matrix, making recommendations, and issuing subpoenas.

In this appeal, the court considered whether indigent parents and guardians – once notified that an investigation has substantiated them for child abuse or neglect – are entitled to the appointment of counsel when exercising their right to an administrative hearing to challenge that determination. The court held that, because the potential consequences of such administrative proceedings – including permanent listing in the Child Abuse Registry – are of significant magnitude, counsel must be made available for indigent parents and guardians both at the administrative level and in any appeal of right to this court, just as that right exists in Title Nine actions commenced in Superior Court. The court also determined that until such time as the Legislature addresses this constitutional right, the Madden list may be utilized for the appointment of counsel.

The Court modifies the judgment of the Appellate Division and remands this matter to the OAL for further proceedings to allow the City the opportunity to demonstrate that the hospital records are admissible as business records, and the opportunity to present any other theories of admissibility.

In this appeal, the court examined the scope of available damages when a defendant's negligence has caused a homeowner to be displaced; that is, the court considered whether a homeowner's damages are generally limited to the cost of alternate shelter or whether the homeowner may also seek additional damages based on a broader concept of inconvenience. In adhering to the legal concepts expressed in Camaraza v. Bellavia Buick Corp., 216 N.J. Super. 263, 265 (App. Div. 1987), where the court held a motor vehicle owner's damages were not necessarily limited to the rental cost of a replacement, and in expanding Camaraza to claims other than those involving the loss of use of a motor vehicle, the court reversed the summary judgment entered in favor of the defense and remand for trial.

Plaintiffs sought recusal of assigned trial judge based upon alleged violation of "objectively reasonable" standard of impropriety set forth in DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502 (2008) based on the alleged personal animus of the judge against plaintiffs’ counsel. Before becoming a member of the judiciary, the judge had been a candidate for local office in his town approximately 14 years prior. Plaintiffs’ counsel was a member of the opposite party and also resided in the same town and was politically active. Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged that anonymous and other sources had indicated the judge held him responsible for campaign materials which called into question the judge’s character and fitness for office during the campaign in 2004. Plaintiffs’ counsel alleged the judge, when he was county chairman, took action to thwart his renomination to a state commission in 2013 four years before joining the judiciary, which was alleged to evidence the judge’s personal animus. Additionally, the judge had also served as county chairman of his political party for the 6 years prior to joining the judiciary. During this time, the son of the principal member of plaintiff LLC was an elected official in the judge’s home town and a member of the judge’s opposite party during which time the judge, as county chairman, had supported the members of his own party over the principal member’s son.

The court held that, under the DeNike standard, a reasonable, fully-informed person would not have doubts about the judge’s impartiality under the circumstances in this matter. The court considered the lack of a prospective financial benefit to the judge, the remoteness in time of the alleged statements by the judge to the present matter, the lack of evidence of a continuous personal animus, the professional dealings between Plaintiff’s counsel and the judge when he was a practicing attorney, and the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm, of which Plaintiffs’ counsel was a named partner, had previously appeared before the judge without objection or incident, all weighed against recusal under the standard. The court also found political motive is not objective evidence of personal animus. The motion to recuse was denied.

The State filed an appeal from a judgment of conviction imposing a probationary sentence on defendant for third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2), involving domestic violence, although aggravating factor fifteen, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(15), was found by the court and thus a presumption of incarceration applied, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d). Because the State has no authority to appeal from a sentence for a third-degree crime that is statutorily permitted, the court dismissed the appeal.

Plaintiff Mary Richter, a middle school teacher who suffers from diabetes, alleges she fainted while teaching due to low blood sugar levels when she was unable to eat lunch at an earlier class period and suffered significant and permanent injuries. She contends the accident would not have occurred had defendants Oakland Board of Education (the Board) and Gregg Desiderio granted her accommodation request to eat lunch earlier. The motion judge granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing Richter's complaint, denied Richter's cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied reconsideration of the dismissal. The judge held that as a matter of law, Richter failed to prove a prima facie case of failure to accommodate her disability because she did not establish an adverse employment action. Thus, her bodily injury claim, which is the subject of the Board's cross-appeal, was denied as moot.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court reverses the motion judge's grant of summary judgment dismissing Richter's complaint. Based on our consideration of Supreme Court decisions in Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383 (2008) and Royster v. N.J. State Police, 227 N.J. 482 (2017), the court concludes that Richter need not demonstrate an adverse employment action to establish a prima facie case of a failure to accommodate claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Because there were genuine issues of material facts concerning whether Richter was provided an accommodation and whether the accommodation was adequate, which must be determined at a trial, the court affirms the denial of Richter's cross-motion for summary judgment. As to the Board's cross-appeal, the court concludes the Workers' Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146, does not bar Richter's bodily injury claim, but should she prevail at trial, the Board should receive a credit based on the amount of medical bills and lost wages it paid in her workers' compensation claim in accordance with N.J.S.A. 34:15-40..

In this case, two children under the age of five have been in the continuous care, custody, and supervision of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency due to the abuse and neglect of their parents. The trial court granted the Division's application to vaccinate the children with age-appropriate immunizations over the religious-based objections of the parents. The court granted the mother leave to appeal.

The children are not students. Therefore, the religious-based exemption to immunization of students afforded by N.J.S.A. 26:1A-9.1 and N.J.A.C. 8:57-4.4(a) does not apply. Rather, the matter is governed by the Child Placement Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 9:6B-1 to -6, and N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.86(b), which collectively require that children in placement receive adequate and appropriate medical care to maintain and advance their mental and physical well-being, and N.J.A.C. 3A:51-7.1(a)(2), which specifically requires the administration of all age-appropriate immunizations.

Parental rights are not absolute and must yield to the safety and well-being of the children. While parents do not lose all of their parental rights when their children are placed in the custody of the Division, they are situated differently than parents who retain legal and physical custody. Pursuant to the State's parens patriae responsibility to protect the welfare of children, the Division has a duty to provide appropriate medical care and treatment to children in its custody. This duty encompasses the authority to administer age-appropriate immunizations over the religious objections of the parents. The court perceives no meaningful distinction between the power to order prophylactic medical care in the form of vaccinations to prevent a child from contracting infectious diseases and medical treatment for diseases already contracted.

The circumstances at issue in McKenney, which heavily depended on the prejudice caused to the party disadvantaged by the surprise change in trial testimony, are distinguishable from the change in testimony here. Here there was no demonstration that the changed testimony caused prejudice to T.L., and the plain error standard does not compel reversal, especially because counsel’s failure to object was likely strategic. Under the circumstances, T.L. is not entitled to a new trial.

In this appeal, the court clarifies the standard for evaluating a claim of the work-product privilege. Consistent with the language of Rule 4:10-2(c), the court holds that there is no per se or presumptive rule that materials prepared or collected before litigation are not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Instead, as set forth in Rule 4:10-2(c), there is a multi-part, fact-specific test. The first inquiry is whether the materials were prepared or collected in anticipation of litigation or trial by another party or that party's representative. If so, to obtain the materials, a party must satisfy a two-part standard. The party seeking the materials must (1) show a substantial need for the discovery, and (2) demonstrate that he or she is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials

In this wrongful death case, the defendant liquor store sold vodka and beer to the nineteen-year-old decedent without checking his identification. Decedent and a group of his friends – all of whom were likewise young adults under the legal drinking age of twenty-one – then converged at the home of one of the youths. They drank the purchased alcohol in the young host's bedroom. Decedent then left the house as a passenger in the car of one of the inebriated youths. He died when the driver lost control of the car and it flipped over.

The decedent's estate sued the car driver and its owners for negligence and the liquor store under the Dram Shop Act. The liquor store pled a third-party complaint against the young man who had hosted the gathering and his parents. The trial court granted them summary judgment, finding they had not violated any established legal duty.

Under the circumstances presented, the parents had no statutory or common law duty to prevent their adult son from allowing his adult underage friends to drink alcohol in their home without their proven knowledge or consent. Nor did the son who hosted the gathering have a duty of care under current law.

Addressing 2017 amendments to N.J.S.A. 58:16A-103 (the Act), the court held that the Act allowed defendant to elevate his Sandy-damaged oceanfront townhome for flood safety, despite prohibitions contained in a Declaration of Covenants governing the townhome development. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that, even if defendant was allowed to raise the elevation of the townhome's first floor, he must maintain the existing height of the roofline by reducing the living space within the townhome. That cramped interpretation, aimed at preserving plaintiffs' ocean view, would defeat the legislative purpose to encourage flood-safe construction after Superstorm Sandy.

The trial courts’ resolution of these matters was correct and consistent with clear rulings from the United States Supreme Court that bind state and federal courts on how challenges such as plaintiffs’ should proceed. Those rulings do not permit threshold issues about overall contract validity to be resolved by the courts when the arbitration agreement itself is not specifically challenged. Here, plaintiffs attack the sales contracts in their entirety, not the language or clarity of the agreements to arbitrate or the broad delegation clauses contained in those signed arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court’s precedent compels only one conclusion: an arbitrator must resolve plaintiffs’ claims about the validity of their sales contracts as well as any arbitrability claims that plaintiffs may choose to raise.

A jury convicted defendant of, among other offenses, two counts of attempted murder. Defendant raised pathological intoxication, N.J.S.A 2C:2-8(e)(3), as a defense, attributable to his use of then legally available synthetic marijuana. The prosecutor, while examining the State's psychopharmacology forensic expert, played portions of defendant's four-hour recorded interview. In summation, the prosecutor played portions of defendant's interview again, arguing that defendant's statements directly undercut the defense. The trial judge did not instruct jurors to limit their use of defendant's statements to assessing the merits of the expert's opinion.

The court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, on the basis that the uncounseled statements were used as direct evidence in the absence of any limiting instruction, thereby violating long-standing precedent. A jury must be told that they may not use as direct evidence information provided by a defendant during a mental status interview with a State's expert.

The Court answers both parts of the first certified question in the affirmative: a life insurance policy procured with the intent to benefit persons without an insurable interest in the life of the insured does violate the public policy of New Jersey, and such a policy is void at the outset. In response to the second question, a party may be entitled to a refund of premium payments it made on the policy, depending on the circumstances.