- E.S. VS. G.S., JR. (FV-02-0333-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0792-22 Appellate Feb. 8, 2024
- THE LAW OFFICE OF RAJEH A. SAADEH, LLC VS. TRACY SWEENEY (DC-003444-22, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1966-22 Appellate Feb. 8, 2024
- DAVIS DOS SANTOS AND ELANA DOS SANTOS, HIS WIFE VS. VERIZON NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1532-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3942-22 Appellate Feb. 8, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL A. GILLIARD, ET AL. (20-02-0237, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-1513-21/A-3877-21 Appellate Feb. 9, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SANDRO VARGAS (15-08-1756, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2431-21 Appellate Feb. 9, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAZMERE HOPPS (21-11-3048, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0450-22 Appellate Feb. 9, 2024
- SUPREME ELASTIC CORP. VS. WALTER SCHULEIN, ET AL. (C-000056-19, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0781-22 Appellate Feb. 9, 2024
- KRITHIGA SADEESHKUMAR VS. SADEESHKUMAR VENUGOPAL (FM-12-2082-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0434-23 Appellate Feb. 9, 2024 Summary A-0434-23 The court granted defendant leave to appeal from two orders entered by the Family Part, which denied a motion to amend his answer to include a counterclaim for divorce and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court reversed both orders. The court concluded defendant should have been permitted to amend to include a counterclaim because discovery was not concluded, there was no trial date, and the interest of justice required it. The proposed counterclaim alleged defendant learned of conduct between plaintiff and a third party, which constituted grounds for divorce based on irreconcilable differences and extreme cruelty. Moreover, based on defendant's proposed pleading and extant business litigation in the Law Division involving the parties and the third party, the case appeared to be complex in that defendant's counterclaim sounded in claims against plaintiff for: dissipation, marital fault, and bad faith. Plaintiff argued to the trial court and on appeal that Rule 5:4-2(e) barred defendant's ability to amend the answer to include incidents that occurred during the marriage because defendant knew about the claims and failed to file a counterclaim with his initial answer. The court concluded Rule 5:4-2(e) was inapplicable because it applies when a party seeks to amend an already existing counterclaim. Moreover, the court harmonized Rule 5:4-2(d) and (e) with Rule 4:9-1 and held the amendment of Family Part pleadings are subject to the liberal interest of justice standard in Rule 4:9-1, and courts should permit a party to amend where the request is timely, and not futile, frivolous, or harassing. Close
- STATE SHORTHAND REPORTING SERVICES VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) (CONSOLIDATED) A-1500-21/A-1710-21 – STATE SHORTHAND REPORTING SERVICES VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) (CONSOLIDATED) (REDACTED) [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication.] A-1500-21/A-1710-21 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- 1401 OCEAN LLC, ET AL. VS. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (L-3315-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0402-21 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALPHONSE ANDERSON (16-06-0388, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0884-21 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOAQUIN A. LINARES-HERNANDEZ (16-06-0972, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1883-21 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NGAN LAU KWAN SETO (266784, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2985-21 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ZAIRE R. EVANS (02-04-1288, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3718-21/A-0298-22 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- RANDY JOHNSON VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) A-0625-22 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- STATE SHORTHAND REPORTING SERVICES VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) (CONSOLIDATED) (REDACTED) A-1500-21/A-1710-21 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024 Summary A-1500-21/A-1710-21 In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, the court was asked to consider whether N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10)— from the time of its enactment in 2010—provided an exemption for court reporters under the Unemployment Compensation Law ("UCL"), N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71, or whether court reporters must still establish a Federal Unemployment Tax Act ("FUTA") exemption pursuant N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(1)(G). The court determined N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) does provide such an exemption and there is no requirement for court reporters to establish a FUTA exemption. The court noted the express language of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) provides that services performed by court reporters "shall not be deemed to be employment subject" to the UCL. The court presumed the Legislature understood the implications of removing court reporters from N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y) and the corresponding FUTA mandate and placing the amendment in a different section. The DOL asserted there were no scenarios in which the new statute, N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10), would apply to court reporters in a manner distinct from the operation of the prior exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y). The court rejected that interpretation, which would have rendered N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) meaningless because the amended statute must be read in harmony with N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y) and the rest of the statute. The court further determined the Legislature was fully aware of the prior requirement for court reporters to establish a FUTA exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y), which is why it amended the statute to remove the requirement for a FUTA exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10). The court noted that although a sensible reading of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) provides an exemption for court reporters, to the extent the statutory language resulted in more than one reasonable interpretation, the legislative history unequivocally established the Legislature intended to dispense with the requirement to establish a FUTA exemption. Accordingly, the court reversed the Commissioner's holding with respect to the applicability of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) and concluded petitioners are exempt from the time of the enactment of the statute in 2010. Close
- DISCOVER BANK VS. ALESSANDRA M. MORAES (DC-002345-09, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1177-22 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- THOMAS KIELY, ET AL. VS. WILLIAM C. ILER, ET AL. (C-000008-19 and C-000011-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1363-22 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- ESTATE OF FRANCIS EAGIN III, ET AL. VS. CAREONE AT EVESHAM (L-1079-20, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0426-23 Appellate Feb. 12, 2024
- Amada Sanjuan v. School District of West New York, Hudson County (087515)(Hudson County & Statewide) A-45-22 Supreme Feb. 12, 2024 Oral Argument A-45-22 A-45-22 Audio for A-45-22 Close Summary A-45-22 N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 provides the basis to refer a case to arbitration but does not limit an arbitrator’s authority to impose penalties. The award here is reinstated. Close