Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • IN THE MATTER OF DAVID PETERSON, STOCKTON UNIVERSITY (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-1487-22 Appellate March 5, 2024
  • ARABRUNY LINDOR, ETC. VS. JANORIS JENKINS (L-8627-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1671-22 Appellate March 5, 2024
  • State v. Isaiah J. Knight (087822) (Essex County & Statewide) A-39-22 Supreme March 5, 2024 Oral Argument A-39-22 A-39-22 Audio for A-39-22 Close Summary A-39-22 The sought-after affidavit is physical evidence of the crimes of witness tampering and kidnapping for which defendant and others have been charged. It is therefore subject to reciprocal discovery under  Rule 3:3-13(b)(2)(B) and (D). Close
  • State v. Shlawrence Ross (087823) (Camden County & Statewide) A-34-22 Supreme March 5, 2024 Oral Argument A-34-22 A-34-22 Audio for A-34-22 Close Summary A-34-22 The proper analysis for determining whether the State can obtain this physical evidence rests within the principles of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Neither the Fifth nor the Sixth Amendment would preclude issuing a valid search warrant for the bullet in this case, and the trial court should have determined whether there exists probable cause on which to issue such a warrant. Close
  • JEFFREY BELLO VS. UNITED PANAM FINANCIAL CORP. (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION) A-2986-21 Appellate March 6, 2024
  • H.G. VS D.G. (FV-11-0211-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3638-21 Appellate March 6, 2024
  • EXPRESS BROKERAGE, ETC. VS. THERESA VARGAS, ET AL. (L-8917-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3804-21 Appellate March 6, 2024
  • PETER KRASSNER VS. WALMART, ET AL. (L-0839-18, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0065-22 Appellate March 6, 2024
  • STEPHANIE UGARO VS. LIVINGSTON CIRCLE ASSOCIATES, LP, ET AL. (L-4894-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0325-21 Appellate March 16, 2023
  • ACTLIEN HOLDING INC., ETC. VS. MARIANNE MC AULIFFE, ET AL. (F-000047-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1096-21 Appellate March 16, 2023
  • N.B. VS. M.A.B., ET AL. (FV-07-0200-22 AND FV-07-0201-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1368-21 Appellate March 16, 2023
  • Y.H. AND K.W.C. VS. T.C., ET AL. (L-2488-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1966-21 Appellate March 16, 2023 Summary A-1966-21 In this interlocutory appeal, the court considered the protective breadth of the Expungement of Records statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -31.1 (the expungement statute), against the statutory provisions regulating Transportation Network Companies N.J.S.A. 39:5H-1 to -27 (the TNC statute), where a conviction for aggravated assault bars employment as a rideshare driver and Uber's potential culpability under a theory of negligent hiring or employment.  T.C., an Uber driver, had a previous conviction for aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer.  Uber had knowledge of T.C.'s prior conviction for aggravated assault—in the form of the two background checks—for some period of time prior to the entry of an order of expungement.  The court addressed the narrow issue of whether the expungement gives T.C.'s employer the ability to assert T.C.'s rights so as to imply ignorance of the prior assault conviction.  The court read N.J.S.A. 2C:52-19 to prevent the evidence of an expunged record to be used against the person for whom the expungement is meant to benefit: the recipient of the expungement.  The court does not read N.J.S.A. 2C:52-19 to give instant cover to third parties without further examination of that third-party's conduct, duty and responsibility in a negligent hiring claim.  The court remanded for further development of the record. Close
  • JOHN SACCHI, ETC. VS. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, ET AL. (L-1503-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2115-21 Appellate March 16, 2023
  • DCPP VS. Y.P.T. AND J.R.W., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.D.Y.W. (FG-09-0126-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2976-21 Appellate March 16, 2023
  • NORMA DAVIS VS. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-4093-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0269-22/A-0270-22 Appellate March 16, 2023 Summary A-0269-22/A-0270-22 In these appeals, calendared back-to-back and consolidated to issue a single opinion, the court granted plaintiff Norma Davis leave to challenge two separate Law Division discovery orders arising from her lawsuit alleging that defendants Disability Rights New Jersey, Gwen Orlowski, and Ellen Catanese terminated her employment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50.  The orders were stayed pending these appeals.  In A-0269-22, the trial court order (cell phone record order) granted in part and denied in part, plaintiff's motion to quash defendants' subpoena to her cellular provider seeking her cell phone records.  Plaintiff used her cell phone to perform her work duties while allowed to work from home.  The order required plaintiff:  (1) to produce a redacted copy of her personal cell phone records indicating work-related calls and texts made and received during her normal workday from January 1, 2018 to January 31, 2020; and (2) to submit to the court a copy of the redacted records provided to defendants, as well as a Vaughn[1]  index of an unredacted copy of the records showing all calls and texts made and received during that period.  National Employment Lawyers Association/New Jersey (NELA) filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff. In A-0270-22, the trial court order (social media posts order) granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to provide copies of her private social media posts, profiles, and comments (collectively "social media posts" or "social media content") from January 1, 2020 to August 29, 2022, depicting an emotion, attaching a picture of herself, or mentioning:  Disability Rights or her lawsuit's allegations; her vacations or celebrations; her being ill or worrying about being ill; and her work.  NELA and New Jersey Association of Justice (NJAJ) filed amicus briefs in support of plaintiff.  The court is unpersuaded by plaintiff's and amici's arguments that the trial judge abused his discretion in entering orders which abridged her privacy interests.  The court concludes the judge appropriately considered plaintiff's privacy interests in her social media posts and cell phone bills and did not err in allowing defendants' discovery of limited private social media posts and cell phone bills to defend against her claims that her termination violated the LAD, causing her emotional distress.  The court, however, remands for the judge to add the requirement in the social media posts order –– similar to the cell phone record order –– that plaintiff submit a redacted copy of her private social media posts to defendants and the trial court as well as an unredacted copy of the posts with a Vaughn index to the trial court.   [1]   As pronounced in Vaughn v. Rosen , 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973).  Close
  • State v. Joseph S. Macchia (086334) (Union County & Statewide) A-49-21 Supreme March 16, 2023 Oral Argument A-49-21 A-49-21 Audio for A-49-21 Close Summary A-49-21 The trial court properly instructed the jury on the State’s burden in disproving self-defense and no specific unanimity charge was required. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RALPH BAKER (02-10-1239, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2327-19 Appellate March 17, 2023
  • ROBERT J. TRIFFIN V. CSL PLASMA, INC., ET AL. (DC-002465-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3003-20 Appellate March 17, 2023
  • FINANCE OF AMERICA COMMERCIAL LLC VS. GEM REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL. (L-6417-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3568-20 Appellate March 17, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE MORA-CORTEZ (14-05-0298, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0421-21 Appellate March 17, 2023