Opinion Summaries

This dispute concerns the allowable scope of negotiations for employee contributions to health care and prescription coverage (collectively health insurance) costs in accordance with L. 2011, c. 78, §§ 39 and 41 (Chapter 78), codified at N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.1. Chapter 78 prescribed health insurance contribution rates for public employees over a four-year period beginning July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2015, at gradually increasing rates designated Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4.

Petitioner Ridgefield Park Education Association appealed the scope of negotiations ruling by the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) in favor of respondent Ridgefield Park Board of Education, that Chapter 78 preempted the terms of the parties' collective negotiations agreement (CNA) for the period July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018, such that the Association members were required to contribute at the Tier 4 rate throughout the remaining three years of the 2014-2018 CNA and not just for the first year – July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015. The court reverses the final agency decision because under the circumstances presented PERC's interpretation of Chapter 78 is contrary to the Legislature's intent since it creates the absurd result of a financial hardship of having Association members contribute at the Tier 4 level for three additional years. The court further remands the matter to PERC to fashion and implement an appropriate remedy within sixty days to refund Association members their health insurance contributions that were improperly deducted.

In State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 415 (2015), the Supreme Court revised the standards under New Jersey law governing police searches of motor vehicles that have been lawfully stopped at the roadside. The Court held such roadside searches may be conducted without a warrant if: (1) the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity; and (2) the situation arose from unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances. Id. at 446-48.

The appellate court declines to engraft upon Witt a limitation that would disallow such otherwise-permissible roadside searches in situations where the police have a basis to tow away and impound the vehicle. Consequently, the trial court's suppression order that was founded upon such a rationale is reversed. Moreover, there was no unreasonable delay in this case by the officers in making their decision to proceed with the search at the scene based on probable cause.

The court affirmed defendant's burglary and criminal mischief convictions, rejecting his contentions, raised as plain error, regarding the court's jury instructions and police witnesses' identification-related testimony. The court also rejected defendant's argument that he must be resentenced because of a breakdown in his relationship with his trial counsel. Although a defendant is entitled to conflict-free representation, the court holds that he may not profit from undermining his attorney-client relationship through his own abusive or threatening conduct. Despite defendant's insults and threats, defense counsel wished to proceed, as did defendant. The court discerned no basis for resentencing.

Defendant was repeatedly and explicitly warned that the estimated 2438 days of jail credit may not affect his period of parole ineligibility and that he should not enter the plea agreement expecting as much. Defendant cannot now credibly argue that he relied on a belief that all 2438 days would be applied to his term of parole ineligibility

The only requirements for an asset sale are that a seller is conducting business by holding a valid license and is not subject to an action by the Commissioner. As such, the asset sale was valid, the Irvington location retained its grandfathered status, and DOBI’s decision to grant the license to New Loan was appropriate.

Tax Court: Valerie Shedlock and Judith Solan, Coexecutors of the Estate of Anthony Calleo v. Dir., Div. of Taxation,

Docket No.008644-2018; opinion by Bianco, J.T.C., decided April 30, 2019.For plaintiffs – Stephen L. Klein (Law Office of Stephen L. Klein,attorney); for defendant – Miles Eckardt (Gurbir S. Grewal,Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Plaintiffs, Valerie Shedlock and Judith Solan (“Heirs”), moved to invalidate defendant’s notice of assessment and seek a refund of taxes, and interest paid, and costs of suit. The Heirs argued that defendant erroneously included the real property located at 270 Farnham Avenue, Lodi, New Jersey (“Subject Property”) as a taxable asset of the estate of the Anthony Calleo (“Decedent”) for inheritance tax purposes. Defendant, Director of the Division of Taxation (“Director”), moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice claiming that, the transfer of the Subject Property was intended to take effect upon the Decedent’s death, and is therefore subject to the inheritance tax. The court determined that the motives of the Decedent were inconsequential where the transfer of a property was made more than three years prior to the decedent’s death. The court further determined that because the Decedent transferred and conveyed his right, title and interest in the Subject Property more than three years before death, the transfer was not intended to take effect at or after the Decedent’s death. Therefore, the Heirs’ motion to invalidate the Director’s notice of assessment and refund taxes and interest paid was granted. However, the Heirs’ demand for costs of suit was denied.

Protection of compensation is not restricted to protection of the hourly rate of pay, and a remand is needed. A record must be created to allow the Commissioner to assess the SCESC’s reasons for allocating work among its part-time teachers in a manner that severely reduced the number of hours afforded to the two tenured teachers and awarded work to non-tenured and less senior staff. The Court thus affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division but does not encourage a strict arithmetic calculation along the lines the panel has suggested

Based on its interpretation of N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), the Court concludes that McClain and Blake are entitled to UI benefits because (1) they qualified for UI benefits at their former employment at the time of their departure, (2) they were scheduled to commence their new jobs within seven days of leaving their former employment, and (3) their new job offers were rescinded through no fault of their own before the start date.

Based on its interpretation of N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), the Court concludes that McClain and Blake are entitled to UI benefits because (1) they qualified for UI benefits at their former employment at the time of their departure, (2) they were scheduled to commence their new jobs within seven days of leaving their former employment, and (3) their new job offers were rescinded through no fault of their own before the start date.

Regulations adopted by the Department of Banking and Insurance to implement the provisions of the Health Claims Authorization, Processing and Payment Act (HCAPPA), L. 2005, c. 352 (codified as amended in various sections of titles 17, 17B, and 26 of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated), are valid because: HCAPPA permits payers to obtain reimbursement of overpayments of claims paid, including claims under "stand-alone" or "dental-only" plans, and allows payers to offset overpayments to a provider against future claims the provider submits for other persons

At issue in this appeal is an arbitration clause of a contract for work performed by a general contractor to implement an energy services program for a school district. The arbitration clause provided disputes "may be settled by binding arbitration." In that respect, it conflicted with a request for proposals for the contract and another prior agreement between the parties for the same project, both of which mandated litigation of disputes in a judicial forum.

The court concludes the terms of the arbitration clause, when read in pari materia with the mandatory governing law provisions of the prior documents between the parties are permissive and not mandatory. Accordingly, the court affirms the Law Division order enjoining and dismissing the arbitration proceedings filed by defendant.

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

The panel publishes this opinion at the Supreme Court's request. Trucking companies registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, subject to the Truth in Leasing regulations, 49 C.F.R. pt. 376, in conjunction with the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 13901, 13902, 14102, and 14704, are required to have lease agreements in place with independent drivers enumerating all deductions taken from their pay. The Truth in Leasing requirements apply even if the trucking company retains a third party to manage payments to drivers and to manage delivery paperwork. The trucking company's purpose in contracting the functions to a third party was to avoid the perception it was the drivers' employer, and to maintain the drivers' status as independent contractors. The trucking company alone, however, scheduled deliveries. That the trucks were "leased," to the third party was inconsequential so long as the trucking company retained exclusive control over the shipping schedule.

The majority further found that defendant's failure to raise a new fact-sensitive argument to the trial judge, based on records not available to the trial court, precluded the issue from being considered on appeal. Judge Accurso dissented on that point.

In this post-conviction relief appeal, defendant asserts he was denied his right to represent himself under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Defendant timely, clearly, and unequivocally asserted his right to represent himself, orally and in writing, but the court failed to rule on it. Defendant claims he believed his request was denied, and proceeded to trial with counsel. The PCR court denied relief, concluding defendant waived his right to represent himself. On appeal, the court holds that a defendant may, by conduct, waive a previously asserted right to represent himself, but the evidence must clearly demonstrate that the defendant intentionally relinquished the known right of self-representation. Proof that defendant went to trial with counsel is, on its own, insufficient proof of waiver. The court remands for an evidentiary hearing on whether defendant waived his right to represent himself

In this insurance coverage dispute, the court interprets a homeowner's insurance policy's water-damage exclusion. The court holds that damage caused by a water-main break under a public street, which released water that flowed down a driveway into plaintiff's first-floor apartment, was not excluded as a loss caused by "flood," "surface water," or "water below the surface of the ground." Therefore, the court reverses the trial court's order granting summary judgment dismissal of the homeowner's complaint for coverage, and remands for further proceedings.

The Appellate Division held that when a municipality violates the beach fee statute, N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20, by charging unreasonable beach fees, that violation constitutes the deprivation of a substantive civil right under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA), and a successful plaintiff is entitled to counsel fees. However, because the CRA requires the violation of an unambiguous, specific statutory or constitutional provision, most of the conduct plaintiffs proved in this case, while wrongful, did not establish CRA violations or entitle them to counsel fees.

In these three similar matters, appellants were involuntarily held for longer than the law permits prior to entry of a temporary commitment order. By the time their motions to vacate could be heard, they were discharged from confinement; the trial judge thus denied the motions on mootness grounds. In these appeals, which were consolidated, the court held that, even if appellants' motions were technically moot because they had been released, they were entitled to a ruling on the merits because of the significant liberty interests at stake and because such occurrences were capable of repetition yet likely to evade review.

The court holds that where N.J.S.A. 19:23-22.4 requires that sample primary ballots be printed in Spanish and English, the official primary ballots, including mail-in ballots, must also be printed in Spanish and English.

In this action arising out of the alleged breach of a home improvement contract, a Law Division judge granted defendants' belated motion for discovery sanctions. The court barred plaintiffs from presenting expert testimony or evidence of damages at trial, resulting in the involuntary dismissal of plaintiffs' case. Defendants filed the motion in disregard of discovery rules requiring them to file the motion before the discovery end date, certify they had made a good faith effort to obtain the delinquent discovery, and certify they were not delinquent in their discovery obligations. In addition, defendants had never demanded expert reports in discovery.

On appeal, the court vacated the discovery sanction and dismissal orders. The court held that a trial court abuses its discretion by effectively barring claims as a discovery sanction without explaining its reasons for overlooking the discovery rules intended to assure uniformity and fairness in such matters.

In this case, the court holds that a perceived disability claim based on obesity under the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, must be grounded upon direct or circumstantial evidence that defendants perceived the plaintiff to be disabled due to a medical condition that caused him or her to be overweight. Such proof is absent from this record and, accordingly, the court determined that summary judgment was correctly granted.