- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDREW E. JOHNSON, JR. (13-04-1422, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1621-20 Appellate May 1, 2023
- CHIDI ONUKOGU VS. NEW JERSEY STATE JUDICIARY, ET AL. (L-0413-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3536-20 Appellate May 1, 2023
- RITA MANTINEO, ET AL. VS. ALLAIRE REHAB & NURSING, ET AL. (L-0012-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0760-21 Appellate May 1, 2023
- JOHN CAUCINO VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND) A-1733-21 Appellate May 1, 2023 Summary A-1733-21 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:66-36 (Section 36), a member of the Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF) who has "completed [ten] years of service" and has "separated voluntarily or involuntarily from . . . service[] before reaching service retirement age" is eligible to receive deferred retirement benefits, provided the separation was "not by removal for conduct unbecoming a teacher or other just cause." N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 permanently disqualifies teachers and other school employees who have been convicted of certain crimes from employment in all school systems under the supervision of the Department of Education. Petitioner had accumulated eleven years of service credit when his teaching certificate was revoked by the State Board of Education based on a disqualifying criminal conviction under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1. The conviction was the result of crimes he committed while employed at a mortgage company before he became a teacher and were unrelated to his position as a teacher. The TPAF Board denied the petitioner's application for deferred retirement benefits, reasoning his separation from membership in the pension plan was based upon a "removal for conduct unbecoming a teacher." The court reversed, relying on In re Hess , where the court held that under the equivalent Public Employees' Retirement System statute forfeiture of deferred pension benefits was "conditioned on an involuntary removal due to misconduct related to employment." 422 N.J. Super. 27, 37 (App. Div. 2011). And, Masse v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees' Retirement System , where the Court distinguished between removal based on misconduct and forfeiture of pension rights "unrelated to [the employee's] service." 87 N.J. 252, 263 (1981). Close
- MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL. VS. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (L-2682-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-1879-21/A-1882-21 Appellate May 1, 2023 Summary A-1879-21/A-1882-21 In 2017, a malware/cyberattack infected Merck's computer and network systems. Prior to that date, someone had gained access to the computer systems of a Ukrainian company that had developed an accounting software called M.E. Doc used by Merck and other companies in Ukraine. The malware was delivered into the accounting software. Ultimately, over 40,000 machines in Merck's network were infected, resulting in "massive disruptions" to Merck's global operations. The malware spread to at least sixty-four different countries, including Russia. Merck sought coverage for its losses under defendants' "all risks" property insurance policies. Defendants denied coverage under the "Hostile/Warlike Action" exclusion included in all their policies. Although defendants conceded the word "warlike" might not be applicable, they asserted the word "hostile" should be read in the broadest possible sense, as meaning "adverse," "showing ill will or a desire to harm," "antagonistic," or "unfriendly." Defendants contend that any action that "reflects ill will or a desire to harm by the actor" falls within the hostile/warlike action exclusion, as long as the actor was a government or sovereign power. The court found the plain language of the exclusion does not support defendants' interpretation. The exclusion of damages caused by hostile or warlike action by a government or sovereign power in times of war or peace requires the involvement of military action. The exclusion does not state the policy precluded coverage for damages arising out of a government action motivated by ill will. The court also considered the history of the war exclusion, which has been included in policies for more than a century. The few applicable cases reaffirm that similar exclusions have never been applied outside the context of a clear war or concerted military action. The court concludes the exclusion did not include a cyberattack on a non-military company that provided accounting software for commercial purposes to non-military consumers, regardless of whether the attack was instigated by a private actor or a "government or sovereign power." Defendants could not assert the exclusion to bar coverage for Merck's losses. Close
- JEFFREY ACHEY, ET AL. VS. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. (L-0160-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3639-21 Appellate May 1, 2023 Summary A-3639-21 In this class action matter arising out of a contract dispute, plaintiffs appeal from a July 15, 2022 order granting defendants' motion to stay proceedings against Verizon and to compel arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement appearing in the Verizon Customer Agreement. In an oral opinion of the same date, the trial judge first severed a limitation on damages provision from the agreement before enforcing the arbitration clause. In reaching its decision, the court did not discuss any provision of the agreement other than the limitation on damages and severability clause. Nor did the trial judge address why the reasoning of MacClelland v. Cellco P'ship , 609 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2022), which found the exact same arbitration clause unenforceable as permeated with unconscionability, should not apply with equal force here. Exercising de novo review, the court held that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable in its entirety as it is permeated by provisions which are unconscionable and violative of New Jersey public policy. The court affirmed the trial judge's determination striking the agreement's limitation on damages, reversed the order staying the proceedings and compelling arbitration, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its decision. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SIMONE LINDSEY (16-06-1828, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2940-20 Appellate May 2, 2023
- IVONNE D. OVIEDO VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) A-1488-21 Appellate May 2, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PHILIP S. PATRICK (10-02-0181, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1865-21 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KHALIL WHEELERWEAVER (17-02-0547, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1884-21 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- CATHLEEN FENYAK VS. ST. PETER'S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, ET AL. (L-2522-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2014-21 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- DCPP VS. K.N. AND BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF E.N., WHOMSOEVER HE MAY BE, IN THE MATTER OF E.N. (FN-12-0092-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2865-21 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MATTHEW H. CABRITA (18-02-0161, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2980-21 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- Y.Y., ETC. VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF NORTH ARLINGTON, ETC. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-4020-21 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- HACKENSACK RADIOLOGY GROUP, PA VS. GOKSIN SENSOZ (DC-008886-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1524-22 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- DCPP VS. C.S.R. AND T.D., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.C.R. (FG-11-0017-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2300-22 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY VS. LALLYGONE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (L-0775-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2607-22 Appellate Jan. 25, 2024
- CHRIS DOE VS. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1651-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1004-21 Appellate Jan. 26, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RASHAWN BOND (10-03-0288, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1475-21 Appellate Jan. 26, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIEL C. EVERETT (15-05-0629, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2488-21 Appellate Jan. 26, 2024