- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HAROLD K. COLBERT (19-03-0612, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0981-21 Appellate Jan. 9, 2024
- FUNTOWN PIER AMUSEMENTS, INC. VS. BISCAYNE ICE CREAM AND ASUNDRIES, INC., ET AL. (L-2438-15, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-1797-21/A-1943-21 Appellate Jan. 9, 2024 Summary A-1797-21/A-1943-21 After Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey in October 2012, high water levels flooded several communities, causing extensive damage to infrastructure. After the floodwaters receded, municipalities and businesses worked with their electric utility, Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L), to restore power on the boardwalk for the spring 2013 tourist season. After being notified that required repairs had been completed and municipal inspectors had approved the repair work, JCP&L restored power to the boardwalk in May 2013. Months later, a fire broke out, causing severe damage to boardwalk businesses. After an investigation revealed that the source of the fire was likely malfunctioning electrical equipment which had been submerged beneath the boardwalk during the storm, multiple plaintiffs sued for damages, alleging negligence by various parties, including JCP&L. Defendant JCP&L moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted it, finding plaintiffs' expert issued a net opinion on the question of JCP&L's duty to inspect customer owned electrical equipment. The trial court next found plaintiffs failed to make any showing on the question of duty, warranting summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, contending the trial court erred by barring the expert's opinion and granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' various theories which supported the proposition that there is an existing duty on the part of JCP&L to inspect customer owned and maintained equipment. Plaintiffs further argued that if such a duty did not already exist, the severe nature of the superstorm and the JCP&L's "knowledge" that an electrical inspection may have been negligently performed at the fire origin site, supported the imposition of an enhanced duty to re-inspect the work of state-licensed municipal inspectors before restoring power. The court held that: the trial court engaged in a proper exercise of discretion when it barred plaintiffs' expert testimony; public utility JCP&L had no duty to inspect the privately-owned electrical equipment of a commercial businesses as a pre-condition to restoring power. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's order. Close
- IN THE MATTER OF SHANNON TURNER, MERCER COUNTY CORRECTION CENTER (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-2733-21 Appellate Jan. 9, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ELMO M. RIVADENEIRA (07-03-0435, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2968-21/A-1043-22 Appellate Jan. 9, 2024
- LEROY KAY VS. SCI NEW JERSEY FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC, ET AL. (L-2407-22, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2421-22 Appellate Jan. 9, 2024
- ANDREW J. KRASSOWSKI VS. BLOOMBERG LP (L-0364-20, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2928-21 Appellate Jan. 9, 2024
- State v. Brandon M. Washington (087477) (Burlington County & Statewide) A-29-22 Supreme Jan. 8, 2024 Oral Argument A-29-22 A-29-22 Audio for A-29-22 Close Summary A-29-22 Finding no reason to treat impermissibly suggestive events during trial preparation differently from other suggestive identification procedures, the Court extends the relevant principles in Henderson to trial preparation sessions. Witnesses who have made a prior identification should not be shown photos of the defendant during trial preparation -- neither new photos of the defendant for the first time nor, absent good reason, the same photos they previously reviewed. If a party can demonstrate a good reason to show witnesses a photo of the defendant they previously identified, the party must prepare and disclose a written record of what occurred. If, however, a witness has not previously identified a suspect, investigators can conduct an identification procedure during pretrial preparation in accordance with Henderson . A record of the procedure should be created and disclosed under Rule 3:11. Here, to determine the admissibility of the identification evidence, the Court remands to the trial court to conduct a hearing under United States v. Wade , 388 U.S. 218 (1967), and develop a more complete factual record. Close
- MILTON PERKINS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-3350-21 Appellate Jan. 10, 2024
- GREGORY BATTLE VS. HANNAH ALGEE (FD-09-0107-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3658-21 Appellate Jan. 10, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN G. PETRONACI (P-000687-19, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3842-21 Appellate Jan. 10, 2024
- W.E.L. VS. C.K.W. (FV-03-0032-23, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3891-21 Appellate Jan. 10, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MATTHEW STRYCHARZ (6275, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0040-22 Appellate Jan. 10, 2024
- William DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc (087891) (Middlesex County & Statewide) A-37-22 Supreme Jan. 10, 2024 Oral Argument A-37-22 A-37-22 Audio for A-37-22 Close Summary A-37-22 The refund provision is limited in scope: N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 provides relief only to victims of food-related fraud as identified in Chapter 347 and does not extend to all CFA violations. Because the allegations in this matter are unrelated to misrepresentations of the “identity of food,” plaintiffs are not entitled to a full refund under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. J.D. 20-09-0475 Trial Jan. 10, 2024 Summary 20-09-0475 On September 25, 2020, J.D. plead guilty to two counts of criminal sexual contact in the fourth degree in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b). Shortly thereafter, he was deemed incompetent as a result of an intellectual disability, low-IQ and a lack of formal education—having only completed the 8th grade. Two experts opined that J.D. could attain competency with education, although these opinions were disputed by a third expert. As J.D. was not deemed a danger to himself or to others, he was not subject to incarceration or institutionalization pre-trial. In response to a court order requesting guidance on the type of educational services needed to assist J.D. in attaining competency, it was confirmed that no State program exists to provide educational services on an out-patient basis to assist J.D. with attaining competency. On December 20, 2022, the State moved to have a Guardian appointed to assist J.D. in procuring disability benefits that could defray the cost of private educational services and to otherwise assist J.D. in procuring private educational services necessary to attain competency. On March 15, 2023, in an interlocutory Order and opinion of first impression, this court addressed, among other factors, Constitutional considerations and denied the State’s motion to appoint a Guardian and compel J.D., a criminal defendant, to procure private educational services for the purpose of attaining competency. Following a competency hearing on July 26, 2023, by separate Order and opinion dated August 1, 2023, the court: (i) determined that J.D. was not competent and was not likely to attain competency; (ii) vacated J.D.'s guilty plea; and (iii) dismissed with prejudice the complaint against J.D. Based upon the August 1, 2023 Order, the March 15, 2023 Order is now final. Close
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES G. MARTIN (P-000399-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1772-21 Appellate Jan. 11, 2024
- JOHN BRIDGEFORTH VS. CITY OF NEWARK (L-9119-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3587-21 Appellate Jan. 11, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL WING (13-10-1340, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3705-21 Appellate Jan. 11, 2024
- TAMEKO SAWYER VS. RANDY C. LUCAS (L-3880-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3832-21 Appellate Jan. 11, 2024
- G.M.T. VS. D.C.T. (FV-03-2360-20, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3774-21 Appellate Jan. 11, 2024
- JOHN LONGINETTI VS. OCEAN CASINO RESORT (SC-000255-22, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0022-22 Appellate Jan. 11, 2024