- SILVANA LANSIGAN DELVALLE, ET AL. VS. HENRY J. TRINO, ET AL. (L-5663-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2248-21/A-2249-21 Appellate Dec. 6, 2022 Summary A-2248-21/A-2249-21 Our Supreme Court granted leave to defendants Henry Trino, Charlene Trino, Airel Trino, and Kevin Garcia to appeal the denial of their summary judgment motions to dismiss the complaint by plaintiffs Silvana Lansigan Delvalle, as administrator of Raniel Hernandez's estate and individually, and Ralph Hernandez. These appeals were calendared back-to-back and consolidated to issue a single opinion. Plaintiffs' common law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as the claim based on the principal of Portee v. Jaffee , 84 N.J. 88 (1980), arise from the accidental drowning of their son Raniel, while he was swimming, intoxicated, at a pool party hosted by the Trinos. The trial court denied summary judgment to defendants on the ground there were genuine issues of material facts in dispute with respect to their negligence. As to Garcia, the dispute involved his active role in Raniel's drowning. Concerning the Trinos, the dispute involved the common law duty owed to an intoxicated Raniel and the implementation of reasonable pool safety protections to prevent his drowning. The motion court did not address dismissal of plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress and Portee claims. We reverse. Garcia should have been granted summary judgment because the undisputed record indicates he had no role in Raniel's decision to enter the pool, nor did he have a duty to rescue Raniel. Furthermore, there is no indication Garcia failed to exercise good faith when he tried to save Raniel. The Trinos should have been granted summary judgment because the Social Host Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.5 to 5.8, does not govern plaintiff's drowning and, under our current state law, they owed Raniel no common law duty to prevent him from swimming while intoxicated. As for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and Portee claims, they fail as a matter of law. Defendants' conduct in not knowing or indicating how Raniel drowned did not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, and there is no viable Portee claim because plaintiffs did not witness the drowning. Close
- FRANCENA D. MASON-JEGEDE VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (BOARD OF REVIEW) A-2699-20 Appellate Dec. 6, 2022
- Moerae Matrix v. McCarter & English MRS-L-371-22 Trial Dec. 5, 2022
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NATHANIEL YOUNG, JR. (15-12-0812, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2661-18 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OSVALDO RAMIREZ (17-12-0842, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2237-19 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TAHEEM DAVIS (18-10-0775, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1503-20 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022
- ROBERT T. GOLDMAN VS. GAIL H. MAUTNER, ET AL. (FM-07-1478-03, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0067-21 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022
- AMBOY BANK V. M.V.N. HOMES INC., ET AL. (DC-007836-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0625-21 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022
- DARIEN COOPER VS. ROGO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL. (L-2013-21, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0843-21 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022
- AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC. VS. MERIDIA DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL BOUND BROOK, LLC, ET AL. (L-0527-20, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1868-21 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022 Summary A-1868-21 Plaintiff brought a subrogation claim against defendants to recoup insurance benefits it paid to its insured on account of damage caused by a fire at a construction site. In an effort to obtain relevant information pertaining to the cause of the fire, the civil action parties served a subpoena duces tecum on the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office (SCPO), a non-party law enforcement agency, and moved to compel production of its criminal investigation file relating to the ongoing prosecution of the individual who was suspected of starting the fire. The trial judge rejected the SCPO's claim that the criminal investigation materials were privileged and confidential, and ordered it to turn over to the civil action parties: (1) videos and photographs depicting the events giving rise to the criminal prosecution, (2) the suspect's statement to police, and (3) witness statements, or alternatively, witness contact information. The court granted the SCPO's motion for leave to appeal and reversed the disclosure order. Because the materials sought were subject to a qualified privilege, the court determined that the trial judge failed to properly balance the competing interests at stake. The court held that the civil action parties' discovery interests were subordinate to the State's paramount interest in preserving the integrity of an ongoing criminal prosecution and the underlying evidential record. The court acknowledged that the privilege was not absolute but pointed out that the materials were not essential to the resolution of the subrogation claim and the presence of significant monetary damages did not of itself outweigh the SCPO's interests in protecting and maintaining the confidentiality of its criminal investigation materials. Further, the civil parties failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that at least some of the information could not be obtained from other sources. Close
- JPC MERGER SUB LLC VS. TRICON ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. (L-2885-21, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2893-21 Appellate Dec. 7, 2022 Summary A-2893-21 In this contract payment dispute between a general contractor and its subcontractor, the court held as a matter of first impression that a "pay-if-paid" provision in a construction contract is enforceable as a matter of law. The court adopted the construction industry's definition of "pay-if-paid" provisions as conditions precedent to payment that shift the risk of a project owner's nonpayment from the general contractor to the subcontractor, by virtue of which the subcontractor is paid by the general contractor only if the owner pays the general contractor for that subcontractor's work. The court held that subject to the parties' implied duty to not frustrate conditions precedent to performance, such provisions are neither unfair, unconscionable, nor against public policy so long as the contract specifies a clear and unambiguous intent to shift the risk of nonpayment. Given the court's holding regarding the enforceability of a "pay-if-paid" provision and determination that the subcontractor expressed a clear and unambiguous intent to be bound by such terms, the court concluded that a counterclaim relying on the "pay-if-paid" provision to bar payment to the subcontractor based on the owner's nonpayment for the subcontractor's work adequately suggested a cause of action for breach of contract to withstand dismissal under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the motion judge's order denying the subcontractor's motion to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). However, the court reversed the motion judge's order granting summary judgment dismissal of the subcontractor's claims for payment because there was a factual dispute as to whether the owner's nonpayment was precipitated by the general contractor's wrongful conduct. Close
- E.S. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES) A-1462-20 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- EROL DEVLI VS. NORMAN DAVID TASCI (L-0373-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2573-20 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID A. JAGGIE (24-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2829-20 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- G.K.H. VS. D.M.R. (FV-02-1854-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2944-20 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- O.L. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES) A-3556-20 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- D.I.L. VS. T.L.B. (FV-06-0358-22 AND FV-06-0463-22, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1083-21 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- PHILLIPSBURG DELI & MINI MARKET, LLC VS. BABLA FUEL STOP, LLC, ET AL. (L-1007-20, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1792-21 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- ALBERT WITTIK VS. PNC BANK, N.A., ET AL. (L-5141-21 AND L-5616-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2079-21/A-2089-21 Appellate Dec. 8, 2022
- MICHAEL JOHN BOSWELL VS. DANIEL E. BOSWELL, ET AL. (C-000057-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3956-19 Appellate Dec. 9, 2022