Published Appellate Court Opinions

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).

The court addressed two issues of first impression in New Jersey: (1) whether the swabbing of a defendant's hands for gunshot residue (GSR) constitutes a search under applicable constitutional doctrines, and if so, (2) whether such a search is valid under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. The court held that the swabbing of a defendant's hands for GSR is a search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution because it intruded upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. Balancing the intrusion of GSR testing on an individual's privacy against promoting vital governmental interests, the court further concluded that if an individual is lawfully arrested and in police custody, a delayed search of the arrestee's person for GSR evidence after the arrestee is transported to police headquarters is constitutionally permissible under the search incident to arrest exception as long as the delay itself and the scope of the search are objectively reasonable. In this case, given the existence of probable cause, the timeline, location, and limited intrusion involved in the testing, as well as the ready destructibility of GSR evidence, the court was satisfied that the search was objectively reasonable in time and scope to pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, the court reversed the Law Division's order suppressing the GSR evidence and remanded for further proceedings.

Because the Kinship Legal Guardianship Act, N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -7, provides a permanent home for children, we affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Education that the children must now go to school where their kinship legal guardian lives. Neither the educational stability law, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-26; N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(a)(2), nor the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 to 1482, allows the children to remain enrolled in the school district where their biological mother is located.

A jury found defendant Kyle P. Brown guilty of third-degree arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b), and second-degree causing or risking widespread injury or damage, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2(a)(1), as a result of setting fire to, and causing an explosion of, his parked car in a sparsely-filled parking lot adjacent to his apartment building in the early morning hours.

The court holds the trial judge did not err in denying defendant's motion for acquittal of third-degree arson and second-degree causing or risking widespread injury or damage because there was sufficient evidence to establish that he caused a fire and explosion as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b), and an explosion as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2(a)(1).

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the court affirms the trial judge's ruling on all other issues.

In this appeal, the court examined whether a child's biological mother, who voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to allow her own mother, the child's maternal grandmother, to adopt the child, had standing as the child's legal sibling, per N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, to seek visitation rights against a non-relative adoptive mother. The court found the biological mother did not have standing under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.

The child was placed with his non-relative adoptive mother following the death of his maternal grandmother. Several years later, a Family Part judge granted the biological mother's request to visit with the child pending his adoption. The visits continued for approximately one year until the child's non-relative adoptive mother adopted the child and stopped the visits. The biological mother filed a complaint to reinstate her visits post-adoption and her complaint was dismissed by another Family Part judge without an evidentiary hearing.

In adhering to the legal precepts expressed in Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1 (2016) and In re D.C., 203 N.J. 545 (2010), the court determined the biological mother lacked standing as a legal sibling and was not entitled to visits under any other legal framework. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Family Part judge's dismissal of her complaint without an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant argued that unused prior service credits could be applied to reduce the period of mandatory parole supervision imposed by the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The court held that prior service credits could not be applied to reduce the period of parole supervision required under NERA.

In this appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification to three plaintiffs who asserted claims under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) of 2003, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1681x, which prohibits retailers who accept credit or debit cards from printing more than the last five digits of the card number or expiration date upon any receipt. The complaint was dismissed as to all three plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants.

Plaintiff Ellen Baskin is a New Jersey resident who made a purchase at one of defendants' New Jersey stores and plaintiffs Kathleen O'Shea and Sandeep Trisal are New York residents who made purchases at defendants' New York stores.

The court agreed with the trial court that plaintiffs failed to establish that class action was warranted under Rule 4:32-1(b)(3). Specifically, plaintiffs only alleged technical violations of FACTA, and they did not assert they were victims of identity theft, fraud, or other harm. The court determined that individual actions in the small claims section would be a superior means to adjudicate claims of technical violations of FACTA. Thus, the superiority and predominance requirements of Rule 4:32-1(b)(2) were not met.

The court held that the New Jersey courts do not have general jurisdiction over defendants or specific jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the New York plaintiffs. However, the court determined that the trial court erred in dismissing Baskin's complaint because she is a New Jersey resident with an alleged FACTA claim emanating from a transaction at one of defendants' New Jersey stores. Therefore, the court reversed dismissal of Baskin's claims and reinstated the complaint as to her individual claims only.

Barbara J. Boyd (defendant) and her husband William L. Boyd practiced law under the firm name, Boyd & Boyd. They did not have a partnership agreement and were never actually partners in the firm. After defendant left the firm and retired from the practice of law, William L. Boyd continued to practice under the firm name. The firm provided legal services to decedent, Renee M. Barbuto, and her estate later obtained a legal malpractice default judgment against the firm.

The estate claimed defendant was liable for the default judgment under N.J.S.A. 42:1A-20(a) and (b), which define the liability of purported partners under the Uniform Partnership Act (1996), N.J.S.A. 42:1A-1 to -56. At trial on the claim, plaintiff conceded defendant was not an actual partner in the law firm but argued defendant was liable because inclusion of her last name in the law firm's name constituted a representation she was a partner. Following presentation of plaintiff's evidence at trial, the court granted defendant's motion for dismissal. The trial court determined defendant is not liable for the firm's malpractice as a purported partner because plaintiff did not present any evidence decedent relied on a representation that defendant was a partner when decedent employed the firm to provide legal services.

The court affirms the dismissal. The plain language of N.J.S.A. 42:1A-20(a) and (b) imposes liability only where a plaintiff demonstrates reasonable reliance on a representation that the purported partner is a partner. The court rejects plaintiff's contention partnership liability may be imposed based on violations of RPC 7.5(c) and (d), which establish standards for inclusion of deceased and retired partner's names in law firm names, because RPC violations do not give rise to civil causes of action

The court granted defendants leave to appeal from orders that denied their request to declare they were not statutorily ineligible for Drug Court and to process their applications. The judge accepted that recent revisions to the Drug Court Manual (the 2019 Manual ) preserved two "tracks" for entry into the program: one, pursuant to special probation, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14; and a second, as a general condition of probation, N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1. See, e.g., State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421 (2007).

Defendants were not eligible for special probation, because they faced current charges that were not "subject to a presumption of incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility[.]" N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a). Additionally, defendants were previously convicted of crimes that made them ineligible pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(6), (7). The judge accepted the State's argument that although there were two tracks for entry into Drug Court, the 2019 Manual created one uniform standard for eligibility under both tracks, specifically, that an applicant was legally ineligible if he failed to meet the criteria in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14.

The Court reversed, concluding that the full text of the 2019 Manual did not support the State's interpretation, which was contrary to the clear intention, both legislatively and administratively, to broaden eligibility for Drug Court.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction after a jury convicted him of murder, arguing he was denied the right to a jury of his peers

During the voir dire, after an African American male juror was found acceptable to the court and seated in the jury box, the prosecutor performed acriminal background check on the juror and discovered someone with the same name had an outstanding municipal warrant. Without explanation to or from the juror, the trial judge granted the State's motion to remove the juror for cause so he could be arrested outside the presence of other jurors. Defendant argued the exclusion of the juror was racially motivated

The court reverses because the judge did not question the juror himself to ascertain the accuracy of the State's representation and the judge should have addressed defendant's objection under a Batson/Gilmore analysis.

In a prior appeal, this court reversed and remanded the trial judge's open duration alimony determination directing him to find the marital lifestyle numerically and, if necessary, adjust the life insurance securing the alimony. The trial judge failed to enumerate the marital lifestyle and instead supplemented the supported spouse's current expenses with some expenses incurred during the marriage. The trial judge also decreased the life insurance obligation and calculated the death benefit using the supporting spouse's full social security age as the presumed end date for alimony.

The court reverses and remands the matter again to the trial judge and holds that N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b)(4) requires the judge to numerically calculate the marital lifestyle. The court's decision explains the purpose for and the means by which to calculate the marital lifestyle. The court also reverses and remands the life insurance computation and provides a method for calculating the present-day value of the alimony obligation to determine the life insurance death benefit.

Defendant Frank Campione, a licensed physician assistant, who was federally registered to prescribe opioid medications, was indicted on charges of the unlawful practice of medicine, distribution of a controlled dangerous substance to patients, and possession of prohibited weapons. The State alleged that Campione misrepresented himself as a physician to patients, improperly wrote prescriptions in non-traditional settings, such as vehicles and restaurants, and wrote prescriptions for opioid medications that were not medically necessary. Defendant Howard Katz, a licensed physician who agreed to serve as Campione's supervising physician, was charged with unlawful practice of medicine.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the entire indictment was granted by the motion court. The motion court also granted defendants' motion for discovery of the identity, opinions, and reports of the experts consulted by the State post-dismissal of the indictment.

The court affirmed the dismissal of all charges against Katz. The State presented no evidence to the grand jury that Katz participated in Campione's alleged acts of improperly holding himself out as a physician to patients.

The court also affirmed the dismissal of the counts alleging the unlawful practice of medicine based on Campione's alleged failure to practice under the direct supervision of a physician and failure to provide notice of his employment to the State Board of Medical Examiners. Such conduct involves professional misconduct punishable by civil penalties, not criminal acts.

Similarly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the count charging defendants with conspiring to commit the unlawful practice of medicine. Because Campione was a licensed physician assistant who was registered to prescribe opioid medications and Katz was a licensed physician, violating the Physician Assistant Licensing Act (PALA), N.J.S.A. 45:9-27.10 to .28, is professional misconduct punishable by civil penalties, not criminal conduct under our Criminal Code. Thus, conspiring to violate PALA is not a crime

The court reversed the dismissal of the weapons counts because the State was not precluded from introducing evidence of the possession of the prohibited weapons in a subsequent grand jury proceeding that was not introduced during the first presentment.

The court also reversed the order compelling the State to provide postdismissal discovery of the State's experts. Because the indictment was dismissed in its entirety, the criminal action was no longer pending.Accordingly, the discovery afforded under Rule 3:13-3(b)(1) does not apply even though defendant Campione still faced a civil forfeiture action and administrative disciplinary proceedings brought by the Board of Medical Examiners.

In these two consolidated appeals, calendared back-to-back for the purposes of a single opinion, plaintiff appeals the trial court's denial under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and the common law right of his access, to the names and addresses on dog license records issued by defendant municipalities. The Law Division determined plaintiff was not entitled to the information because his sole purpose was to solicit dog licensees to install invisible fences at their homes. The court reverses.

The court concludes there is no outright prohibition under OPRA for the access of public records for commercial purposes, Burnett v. Cty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 435 (2009), and the licensees' names and addresses are public records in which they have no, or an insufficient, expectation of privacy in the information, Brennan v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 233 N.J. 330, 338, 342 (2018). Accordingly, the court need not reach plaintiff's common law argument.

The court addressed whether the unconscionability standard embodied in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f) of New Jersey's Anti-Eviction Act is preempted by federal regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f) provides that the unconscionability of a rent increase is a defense in a summary dispossess action to removal for cause based on a tenant's failure to pay rent. Relying on the language in the governing HUD regulations, explicitly preempting the entire field of rent regulation, the court held that N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f) is preempted by the regulations. As a result, HUD-approved rent increases are not reviewable in summary dispossess proceedings, and the trial judge properly precluded evidence challenging the increase as unconscionable. The court also concluded that if the unit in which the tenant resides is subject to a HUD Section 8 housing assistance payments contract, then the operation, management, and maintenance of that unit, including the approval of rent increases, is governed by HUD's regulatory control irrespective of whether the tenant receives a Section 8 housing subsidy.

Defendant, while incarcerated for a parole violation, was arrested for a homicide he committed while on parole. After defendant completed his parole violation sentence, he remained in jail awaiting resolution of the homicide charges. He thereafter entered a guilty plea to the homicide charges. At sentencing, the trial court, following the holding in State v. Black, 153 N.J. 438 (1998), awarded defendant eighty-six days of jail credits for the period from the day he completed his parole violation sentence to the day of sentencing.

Defendant acknowledged that if Black applies, the trial court awarded the correct number of jail credits. He argued, however, that the holding in Black was effectively overruled by the Court in State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011), and as a result, he is entitled to 1149 days of jail credits for the period from the day he was arrested on the homicide charge to the day of sentencing.

The court rejected defendant's argument, noting that Hernandez concerns circumstances unlike those in Black and that in Hernandez, the Court discussed its holding in Black at length without stating it was departing from that holding. In addition, the court reviewed a number of precedents cited by defendant applying the holding in Hernandez but found all inapposite to the circumstances addressed in Black. In the absence of a Supreme Court decision overruling its prior decision, the court declined to stray from the unequivocal holding in Black and affirmed the award of jail credits.

The court held that when police file a use of force report (UFR) regarding an officer's interaction with a minor charged as a delinquent, it is available under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, if redacted to remove the minor's name, as are UFRs filed regarding interactions with adults. Deletion of the minor's name preserves the confidentiality of a juvenile's records of delinquency or family in crisis as guaranteed pursuant to Rule 5:19-2 and N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60. Redacted UFRs filed regarding police encounters with minors charged as a delinquent are not records "pertaining to juveniles"—they are government records capturing details of police conduct available to the public.

The court considered whether the omission of one of the Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation adequately conveys the substance of the warnings and concluded it did not, notwithstanding the fact that defendant continuously interrupted the administration of the warnings. Acknowledging out-of-state authority holding that a suspect may waive Miranda warnings by interrupting their delivery, the court concluded that the suspect's interruption of the warnings does not discharge law enforcement of their duty to deliver them. Finding that the erroneous introduction of the partially unwarned statements was not harmless error, the court reversed defendant's conviction, which followed a bifurcated jury trial, and vacated his guilty plea on the weapons offense. Relying on United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), however, the court rejected defendant's contention that suppression of the weapon was mandated as a remedy for the Miranda violation despite the fact that the weapon was seized as a result of a search warrant based on the statements.

In this appeal, the court held that an intoxicated defendant asleep and behind the wheel of a parked motor vehicle with its engine running is "operating" the vehicle within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a).

This appeal presents an issue of first impression, requiring the court to determine whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339 (2012), require defense counsel to advise their clients whether – and under what circumstances – the successful completion of the pretrial intervention program would permit a defendant to avoid immigration consequences. The Law Division judge denied defendant's petition for postconviction relief, finding Padilla and Gaitan did not apply here, where defendant did not enter a guilty plea.

Because neither Padilla nor Gaitan expressly limits its holding to cases in which a defendant enters a guilty plea, the court declines to narrowly construe their application only to those dispositions. Instead, the court interprets those decisions to impose an obligation upon defense attorneys to advise their clients of the potential immigration consequences of any criminal disposition, whether that disposition will result from a guilty plea, trial, or diversionary program. Accordingly, the court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing.

Plaintiff appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, a fellow golfer, with whom plaintiff was playing in a foursome. Defendant rented a golf cart, and plaintiff alleged that defendant – contrary to the rental agreement – allowed the cart to be driven by another golfer, who was allegedly unfamiliar with its operation and who, while operating the cart, struck plaintiff, causing his injuries. The trial judge granted summary judgment because, among other things, he viewed the rental agreement as a contract of adhesion that benefitted only the golf course, not other golfers like plaintiff.

In reversing, the court held, among other things, that the rental agreement was irrelevant because defendant owed plaintiff a common law duty to refrain from negligently entrusting the golf cart to an allegedly incompetent operator. The court also rejected the argument that the rental agreement was a contract of adhesion, as well as defendant's argument that plaintiff was not a beneficiary of the promises contained in that agreement.