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

Search

  • J.P. VS. J.N. (L-9584-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2616-21 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ETC. VS. K.T. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3165-21 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • ALEXANDER NICOLAS VS. TRENTON BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-1718-18, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4039-21 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • IN THE MATTER OF D.Z. (0266-XTR-2022-000001, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0066-22 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MALCOLM S. HUNTER (19-12-1886, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0325-22 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • PRINCETON NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, P.C. VS. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY (L-0796-19, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0486-22 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • 56 EASTON REDEV LLC VS. DR. RASIK JIVANI (C-000112-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1788-22 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • TOWNSHIP OF PISCATAWAY VS. POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION LOCAL 93 (L-2340-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3175-22 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024
  • ALLURE PET PRODUCTS, LLC VS. DONNELLY MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT LLC, ET AL. (L-1281-21, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0429-23 Appellate Jan. 17, 2024 Summary A-0429-23 This interlocutory appeal concerns whether the New Jersey courts have personal jurisdiction over a defendant Utah company and its sole owner who entered into a contract to reserve a booth for plaintiff, a New Jersey company, at a biannual trade show in Germany planned for 2020.  The 2020 trade show was eventually cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the company and its owner declined to refund plaintiff's payment or apply it to the next show in 2022. Defendants argue they lacked the required "minimum contacts" to be sued in New Jersey, stressing that plaintiff originally initiated the parties' relationship in 2011 by asking defendants to arrange for space at an earlier trade show in 2012.  They further contend it would offend constitutional principles of fair play and substantial justice to compel them to litigate this civil case in this distant state. The court affirms the motion judge's finding of personal jurisdiction.  Although cases that have found specific jurisdiction often have involved a defendant that first initiated contact with a plaintiff in the forum state, the court holds it is not dispositive that the New Jersey plaintiff originally initiated contact with the Utah company and its owner years before the present transaction.  The record shows the Utah defendants sought and procured renewal contracts with plaintiff for the next four biannual trade shows, including 2020.  In addition, the Utah defendants repeatedly solicited new or renewal business from at least ten other New Jersey pet company exhibitors during that time frame. Given that conduct, the Utah defendants "purposely availed" themselves of doing business with New Jersey customers to a level sufficient to satisfy the criteria for in personam jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. In addition, the norms of fair play and substantial justice are not offended here.  Defendants could have included a forum selection clause in their form contract but failed to do so.  The parties have already taken depositions remotely, and defendants can request the trial court—in this modest non-jury case with few witnesses—to consider in its discretion allowing them to appear remotely at trial. Close
  • State v. Curtis L. Gartrell (087597) (Essex County & Statewide) A-31-22 Supreme Jan. 17, 2024 Oral Argument A-31-22 A-31-22 Audio for A-31-22 Close Summary A-31-22 Defendant’s possessory or ownership interest in the suitcase ceased when he fled police outside Penn Station and deliberately left his suitcase behind in a public place with no evidence of anyone else’s interest in the bag. Because the State has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the suitcase was abandoned, defendant is without standing to challenge its seizure and search. Close
  • IN THE MATTER OF LATERA GRIFFIN, HUDSON COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-0678-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • IN THE MATTER OF ALENA B. HECKSHER, L.S.W., APPLICATION FOR L.C.S.W. LICENSE (NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF SOCIAL WORK EXAMINERS) A-2120-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • USBANKCUST/PROCAP8/ PROCAPMGTII VS. BLOCK 268, LOT 7 38 BRENWAL AVE., ETC. (F-006684-20, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2193-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • PAUL ROIK VS. ANITA ROIK (FM-13-0156-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2522-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024 Summary A-2522-21          Following a long-term marriage, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce and the parties, represented by counsel, entered a comprehensive marital settlement agreement (MSA).  Plaintiff sought an uncontested divorce "on the papers" and filed the certification required by the Administrative Office of the Courts for such a proceeding.  However, defendant sought an uncontested divorce hearing by way of Zoom, which the court in turn scheduled.  Plaintiff died before the uncontested hearing.          His estate, represented by the parties' eldest son, sought to be named the real party in interest and to enforce the MSA, among other relief.  Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint because of plaintiff's death.  The trial judge denied the motion and dismissed the complaint.  It ruled that under Carr v. Carr , 120 N.J. 336 (1990), plaintiff's death abated the divorce and there were no unusual or exceptional circumstances warranting invocation of an equitable remedy, such as a constructive trust, to prevent an unjust enrichment by defendant.           The court reversed and remanded for entry of an order permitting the estate to be substituted as the real party in interest and incorporating the MSA into a final judgment.  Although defendant did not engage in conduct warranting the imposition of a constructive trust, the trial court overlooked the fact the parties had a fully signed MSA that was fair and equitable, whose validity defendant did not challenge, and that but for the delay in scheduling the uncontested hearing, both parties intended to proceed with the uncontested divorce.  Therefore, the equities and our public policy of encouraging and enforcing settlements in matrimonial matters did not warrant discarding the MSA and dismissing the matter.            While the appeal was pending, the Legislature amended the intestacy and equitable distribution statutes.  The amendments to the equitable distribution statute authorize Family Part judges to effectuate equitable distribution where a party dies during a divorce proceeding and the complaint has not been previously dismissed pursuant to Rule 4:6-2.  The Legislation is effective January 8, 2024.          The court reviewed the plain language of the new statutes and the legislative statement accompanying their passage, and concluded the Legislature intended to afford pipeline retroactivity to pending cases.  Therefore, the new statutes applied to this case and provided independent grounds to uphold and enforce the parties' MSA. Close
  • WILLIAM N. SOSIS VS. TOWNSHIP OF MANSFIELD COMMITTEE, ET AL. (L-0298-21, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2661-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • LAURA CASTAGNA VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) A-2835-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • DEREK ARMSTEAD, ET AL. VS. LOCAL FINANCE BOARD (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS) A-3476-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • PAUL SCHORR VS. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF TRENTON, ET AL. (L-0546-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3772-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • CHARLES WILLIAMS VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-3935-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024
  • PAUL SCHORR VS. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF TRENTON, ET AL. (L-0711-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3938-21 Appellate Jan. 18, 2024