- ROCKLEIGH COUNTRY CLUB, LLC VS. HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP, ET AL. (L-4013-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2615-21 Appellate March 3, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAWN REEVES (18-06-1843, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0921-20 Appellate March 6, 2023
- LEONOR ALCANTARA, ET AL. VS. ANGELICA ALLEN-MCMILLAN, ET AL. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-3693-20 Appellate March 6, 2023 Summary A-3693-20 Appellants, parents of children enrolled in the Lakewood Public School District (District or Lakewood), filed a petition alleging the District was not providing its public-school students a thorough and efficient education as required by our State's Constitution. N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 4, ¶ 1. They contend this is due to the failure of the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) to adequately fund the District. To that end, they assert the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-43 to -70, which sets certain standards for the DOE, is unconstitutional as applied to Lakewood. The record demonstrates Lakewood's school district is in a unique and precarious position. Due, in large part, to demographic trends in the area. Lakewood Township has seen a population rise in recent decades, primarily resulting from a thriving Orthodox Jewish community. As a result of this demographic shift, the township has approximately 37,000 school-aged children, however, only about 6,000 are enrolled in the secular public schools. The majority—eighty-four percent—are enrolled in private religious schools. Testimony before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established this demographic trend is likely to continue and accelerate. Like other districts, Lakewood's state-issued school aid is calculated based upon its 6,000 enrolled public-school students. The total budget for the most recent school year at the time of that decision was $143.45 million. Of that, over half—$78 million—went to transportation and special education tuition for non-public students. This is an abnormal and unsustainable imbalance. The court concluded the record generated before the ALJ cannot fairly be said to support a finding Lakewood's students are receiving a constitutionally sound education. The court held the Commissioner utilized an incorrect standard in rejecting the ALJ's finding, and further held the Commissioner owed appellants a thorough review of their substantive argument: the funding structure of the SFRA was unconstitutional as applied to Lakewood's unique demographic situation. The court reversed and remanded for the agency to consider the substantive arguments pertaining to SFRA in light of our Supreme Court's previous directive in Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke ( Abbott XX ), 199 N.J. 140, 146 (2009): the State has a continuing obligation to "keep SFRA operating at its optimal level" and "[t]here should be no doubt that we would require remediation of any deficiencies of a constitutional dimension, if such problems do emerge." Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KATHLEEN M. DORSETT (11-01-0207, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1796-20 Appellate March 6, 2023
- SAMUEL BELLO, ET AL. VS. CHRISTOPHER HALGAS (L-2943-21, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1446-21 Appellate March 6, 2023
- L.R. VS. M.R. (FM-08-0140-17, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1509-21 Appellate March 6, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRES M. CARDENAS-ORTEGA, ET AL. (21-10-0326 AND 14-02-0059, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1578-21/A-1580-21 Appellate March 6, 2023
- HISCOX, ET AL. VS. SOVEREIGN CAPITAL RESOURCES, LLC, ET AL. (L-1811-21, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2709-21 Appellate March 6, 2023
- GEORGE CASTANO VS. WENDELL D. AUGUSTINE, ET AL. (L-0137-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3925-21 Appellate March 6, 2023 Summary A-3925-21 The court granted defendants leave to appeal from the Law Division's orders denying summary judgment and reconsideration. Plaintiff was injured while driving his motorcycle when defendants' tractor trailer pulled into plaintiff's lane of travel. Plaintiff admitted having several drinks throughout the day and that he was speeding at the time of the accident, but, at his deposition, equivocated as to whether he was intoxicated. Blood was drawn at the hospital, and defendants' expert extrapolated from that sample that plaintiff's BAC at the time of the accident was between .159 and .162. Police issued no motor vehicle summonses to plaintiff. In moving for summary judgment, defendants relied upon N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b), which provides: Any person who is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, operating a motor vehicle in violation of [N.J.S.A.] 39:4-50, [N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a], or a similar statute from any other jurisdiction, in connection with an accident, shall have no cause of action for recovery of economic or noneconomic loss sustained as a result of the accident. [(Emphasis added).] The motion judge denied the motion, concluding that the statute did not apply to plaintiff because he was not convicted of DWI and also because there were material disputed facts as to whether plaintiff was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. The court affirmed, agreeing with the motion judge that there were material factual disputes as to plaintiff's state of intoxication at the time of the accident. More importantly, the court concluded the plain language of the statute denied a cause of action only to those plaintiffs actually convicted of DWI. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIEL J. WATERFIELD (19-05-0668, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0555-20 Appellate March 7, 2023
- JENNIFER GILES VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-1049-20 Appellate March 7, 2023
- JANAN PFANNENSTEIN, ET AL. VS. CHRISTINE SURREY, D.O., ET AL. (L-0791-21, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3005-21 Appellate March 7, 2023 Summary A-3005-21 At issue in this medical negligence matter is the kind-for-kind specialty requirement embodied in the New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act (PFA), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-37 to -42. This appeal requires the court to determine whether the affidavit of merit (AOM) of a board-certified hematology expert satisfied the PFA's equivalency requirement where neither defendant doctor specialized, nor was board certified, in hematology when they rendered care to the decedent. Instead, both defendants specialized in internal medicine at the time of the alleged treatment, and one was board certified in that specialty, but plaintiff's proffered expert did not specialize in internal medicine. The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to provide a sufficient AOM, essentially concluding the affiant's hematology subspecialty was "subsumed" in defendants' internal medicine specialty and, as such, the affiant was qualified to opine that defendants deviated from the standards of medical care by improperly prescribing heparin to the decedent. The court granted defendants leave to appeal from the April 14, 2022 Law Division order. The court holds the PFA's kind-for-kind specialty requirement embodied in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a) is not satisfied when the AOM's affiant specialized in a subspecialty of the treating doctor's specialty but did not specialize, nor was board certified, in the physician's specialty when the alleged medical negligence occurred. The court therefore concludes plaintiff failed to satisfy the PFA's equivalency requirements and reverse the trial court's order denying defendants' dismissal motion. In doing so, the court rejects plaintiff's alternate argument that she satisfied the waiver exception to the PFA under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(c), which would have rendered moot defendants' appeal. Close
- DCPP VS. J.C. AND K.C., IN THE MATTER OF A.C. AND W.C. (FN-02-0086-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0241-21 Appellate March 7, 2023
- IN RE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ETC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) A-2370-21 Appellate March 7, 2023
- WARD & O'DONNELL, LLC VS. NANCY WARD (L-1599-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2702-21 Appellate March 7, 2023
- DAKOTA POWELL VS. PRIME COMMS RETAIL, LLC, ET AL. (L-0999-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3053-21 Appellate March 7, 2023
- MICHAEL LUTZ, ET AL. VS. WILLIAM DEUTSCH, ET AL. (L-0119-22, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3481-21 Appellate March 7, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MIGUEL A. VARGAS (16-06-1543, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1471-19 Appellate March 8, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PEPE THOMAS (18-03-0254, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1602-19 Appellate March 8, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALTEREEK R. BOYD (18-04-0197 AND 18-04-0198, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4600-19 Appellate March 8, 2023