- A.S.G. VS. D.T.G. (FV-13-1250-23, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2560-22 Appellate Jan. 30, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ONE PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 275 FARRANT TERRACE, ETC. (L-0723-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2611-22 Appellate Jan. 30, 2024
- YOUR HOMETOWN TITLE, LLC VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) A-1168-21 Appellate Jan. 31, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JESUS DEJESUS (12-09-0693, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2429-21 Appellate Jan. 31, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAWN M. SIMPSON (03-04-0376 AND 04-10-1974, PASSAIC AND BERGEN COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2525-21/A-3189-21 Appellate Jan. 31, 2024
- SUZANN FLAMM, ETC. VS. JEFFREY YOUNG, ET AL. (L-1547-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2963-21 Appellate Jan. 31, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF KODI POLLOCK, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-4042-21 Appellate Jan. 31, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF JILLIAN BARON, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-1546-22 Appellate Jan. 31, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT J.R. (ML-0222, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0380-22 Appellate Jan. 31, 2024 Summary A-0380-22 In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, the court addresses whether a New Jersey court may consider a motion to terminate the registration requirements of an individual subject to Megan's Law [1] in New Jersey but residing in another state. The court holds that although a New Jersey court may have jurisdiction to decide the motion, it must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the registrant has standing to bring the motion. J.R. committed a sex offense in 1993 that subjected him to Megan's Law in New Jersey. Upon moving to Montana in 2021, J.R. was subject to registration there because Montana statute requires registration for individuals who committed a sexual offense in another state for which they were required to register. He then filed a motion to terminate his registration obligation in New Jersey pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f). The court agrees with the Megan's Law judge that J.R. no longer had a registration obligation in New Jersey and his obligation in Montana was dependent on his prior conviction in New Jersey, which would remain regardless of the outcome of the motion. The court rejects J.R.'s contention that he continued to have a Megan's Law "status" in New Jersey. He neither faced harm from the denial of the motion nor could he benefit from the granting of the motion because it would not alter his registration obligation in Montana. Because he was not suffering a harm that a New Jersey court could address, J.R. lacked standing to have a New Jersey court decide his motion, and we affirm the Megan's Law judge's decision. Because registration requirements vary across the country, there may be instances where a registrant's obligation to register in another jurisdiction would be impacted by the outcome of a motion to terminate in New Jersey. Therefore, a court must examine the legislative scheme in the jurisdiction where the registrant resides to determine whether the motion presents a justiciable controversy that amounts to standing. [1] N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23. Close
- SHERYL ALEMANY V. TWP. OF MARLBORO 07209-2024 - SHERYL ALEMANY V. TWP. OF MARLBORO Tax Jan. 30, 2024 Summary 07209-2024 - SHERYL ALEMANY V. TWP. OF MARLBORO LOCAL PROPERTY TAX – VETERAN’S EXEMPTION – ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Tax Court: Alemany v. Township of Marlboro , Docket No. 007209-2023; opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided January 29, 2024. For plaintiff - Sheryl Alemany, self-represented; for defendant - Lani M. Lombardi, Esq. (Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys). HELD: Plaintiff, who served in the National Guard, was declared 100% and permanently disabled due to a service-connected disability by the federal Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and was honorably released by the U.S. Army. Defendant denied local property tax exemption for her residence under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 because federal Form DD-214 stated that she was released from “active duty training” and the pre-2019 precedent held that veterans training in the National Guards were not entitled to the exemption. The court found that the New Jersey Constitution and N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 require only “active service” in the Army; the Form DD-214 evidenced that plaintiff was in active service with the U.S. Army National Guard; and full-time National Guard duty is considered as “active service” under the federal military law; therefore, plaintiff qualified for the exemption. The term “active duty training” in Form DD-214 cannot be viewed in a vacuum and solely control determination of plaintiff’s qualification for the exemption. (10 pages) Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EZELL MILLER (18-08-1158, 20-01-0076, AND 21-02-0097, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2297-21 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- DCPP VS. A.Y. AND K.M., IN THE MATTER OF H.M., E.M., K.M., AND K.M. (FN-07-0189-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3830-21 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL BAILEY (13-01-0157 AND 13-01-0161, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0107-22 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- A.R. VS. L.H.M. (FV-12-0769-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1107-22 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- K.K.VS D.T.M. (FV-04-1681-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1575-22 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL J. FIGUEROA (21-07-0552, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1649-22 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- B.A., JR. VS. B.G. (FV-12-2308-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2988-22 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- SHAWN LABEGA VS. HETAL C. JOSHI, M.D., ET AL. (L-3088-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3208-22 Appellate Feb. 1, 2024
- C.P. VS. J.S. (FV-04-2005-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2331-22 Appellate Feb. 28, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEPHEN RODNER (MA-2022-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2797-22 Appellate Feb. 28, 2024