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

Search

  • HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL VS. NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (L-0696-20, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1477-21 Appellate Nov. 30, 2023
  • DCPP VS. D.B. AND D.H., IN THE MATTER OF S.B. (FN-16-0160-20, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-1628-21/A-1629-21 Appellate Nov. 30, 2023
  • KAREN WISEMAN VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND) A-2136-21 Appellate Nov. 30, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRZEJ J. DABEK (6263, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2157-21 Appellate Nov. 30, 2023
  • COLLEEN HARRINGTON VS. LUTHER COLE (L-0383-19, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0780-22 Appellate Nov. 30, 2023
  • TRACY SCAGGS VS. PETER A. WISHNIE, D.P.M., ET AL. (L-2939-22, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3718-22 Appellate Nov. 30, 2023
  • ERNEST BOCK & SONS-DOBCO PENNSAUKEN JOINT VENTURE VS. TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN, ET AL. (L-1878-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3684-22 Appellate Nov. 30, 2023 Summary A-3684-22 In this matter of first impression, the court considered whether a joint venture formed for the sole purpose of bidding on a public contract is required to be registered as a contractor under the Public Works Contractor Registration Act (PWCRA), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.48 to - 56.57, at the time of the bid submission.  The court held that the PWCRA applies to a joint venture and requires registration at the time of bid submission to local governments.  The court likewise concluded the lack of a PWCRA registration certificate by the joint venture renders the bid substantially non-compliant and non-conforming with the local governments' bid specifications.  Lastly, the court held a local government's decision to require all bidders to comply explicitly with the PWCRA as set forth in the bid specification was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable because it was consistent with the local finance and public contract laws.  Accordingly, the court affirms the rejection of the joint venture's bid and the award of the public contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. C.O.C. (20-01-0038, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1993-20 Appellate Dec. 1, 2023
  • BRIAN HURLEY VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-2590-21 Appellate Dec. 1, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TODD STATHUM (14-07-1235, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3264-21 Appellate Dec. 1, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ABDUL WILLIAMS (95-07-2473, 99-08-2789 AND 99-08-2790, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3708-21 Appellate Dec. 1, 2023
  • SCOTT MADLINGER VS. TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, ET AL. (L-0114-22, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0474-22 Appellate Dec. 1, 2023
  • DCPP VS. P.R. AND M.J., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF B.J. (FG-07-0063-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1638-22 Appellate Dec. 1, 2023
  • WCPP Risk Purchasing Group, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Company CAM-L-1025-22 Trial Nov. 29, 2023
  • Weston Landing Condominium Assn. v. Centex MON-L-1518-20 Trial Nov. 29, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PSEG NUCLEAR LLC, ETC. (NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES) A-2518-20 Appellate Dec. 4, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUAN MARTINEZ (19-07-0477, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0869-21 Appellate Dec. 4, 2023
  • PROMPT MORTGAGE PROVIDERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL. VS. SIMON ZAROUR, ET AL. (F-051518-14, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1681-21 Appellate Dec. 4, 2023
  • SIMON COULL VS. EISNER AMPER, ET AL. (L-3671-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2226-21 Appellate Dec. 4, 2023
  • 257-261 20TH AVENUE REALTY, LLC VS. ALESSANDRO ROBERTO, ET AL. (F-003349-21, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3315-21 Appellate Dec. 4, 2023 Summary A-3315-21 In this tax sale foreclosure appeal, the court addressed whether the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County , 598 U.S. 631 (2023), which declared a taxing authority's confiscation of a property owner's equity violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, bars a third-party tax sale certificate holder's foreclosure of a property owner's equity under the New Jersey Tax Sale Law (TSL), N.J.S.A. 54:5-1 to -137, and if barred, whether pipeline retroactivity is afforded.  The court also addressed whether the motion judge's decision to vacate final judgment under Rule 4:50-1(f), based primarily on defendant having redemption funds and significant property equity, was an abuse of discretion.  Defendant Alessandro Roberto [1] owned a mixed residential and commercial use property located in Paterson.  In 2010 and 2016, defendant failed to pay his municipal sewer tax bills resulting in plaintiff's $606 purchase of three property tax sale certificates.  Almost eleven years after the last tax sale certificate was purchased, plaintiff commenced a tax sale foreclosure.  As the matter was uncontested, plaintiff obtained final judgment for $32,973.15.  Defendant moved to vacate final judgment pursuant to Rules 4:50-1(e) and (f), arguing entitlement to equitable relief because he had redemption funding, would lose significant equity, and suffered COVID-19 related financial difficulties.  The Chancery Division judge vacated final judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(f). Plaintiff 257-261 20th Avenue Realty, LLC appealed from the Chancery Division orders, which conditionally vacated final judgment and permitted redemption, vacated final judgment upon satisfaction of the conditions, and dismissed the action with prejudice.  Plaintiff argued the judge erred in finding exceptional circumstances existed to vacate final judgment.  Defendant argued the totality of facts weighed in favor of exceptional circumstances to vacate final judgment and the judge did not abuse his discretion.  After the judge's decision and the submission of merits briefs on appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Tyler .  The court affirmed the decision to vacate final judgment, based on the judge's detailed findings of exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:50-1(f), discerning no abuse of discretion.  The court also concluded cause existed to vacate judgment as the application of Tyler to New Jersey's similar TSL framework established that the confiscation of a New Jersey property owner's equity, through a tax sale foreclosure, violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.  As Tyler established a new principle of law, pipeline retroactivity is afforded.   [1]   Defendant's first name was incorrectly pleaded as Alesandro.  Close