- MARY ANN MUNRO, ET AL. VS. KATHERINE PEPE (C-000014-22, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3180-22 Appellate June 25, 2024
- VECTOR FOILTEC LLC VS. DAWN BECKER, ET AL (L-0334-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3293-22 Appellate June 25, 2024
- BERNARDO DIAZ, ET AL. VS. SIXTO BOBADILLA, ET AL. (L-3309-12, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3961-22 Appellate June 25, 2024
- TYREE DESHAWN MIMS VS. CITY OF GLOUCESTER, ET AL. (L-2054-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0068-23 Appellate June 25, 2024 Summary A-0068-23 This appeal concerned the threshold requirements for an applicant's waiver of court fees based on indigency. Rule 1:13-2(a), governing proceedings by indigents, was supplemented by the New Jersey Supreme Court's April 5, 2017 order, which established a standard fee waiver application process and criteria. The Court's order authorized the Administrative Office of the Courts to promulgate directives providing "uniform fee waiver request forms" and a standard protocol. See generally Admin. Off. of the Cts., Admin. Directive #03-17, Fee Waivers Based on Indigence (rev. Apr. 20, 2017). Plaintiff Tyree Deshawn Mims appealed from a July 19, 2023 Law Division order, which denied without prejudice his motion to proceed as indigent. The trial court found that plaintiff failed to provide the required documentation. On appeal, plaintiff contended his submitted documentation satisfied the eligibility requirements of Rule 1:13-2(a), warranting a waiver of court fees in this action and in all future litigation. The court concluded the trial court properly denied plaintiff's motion because he failed to complete the uniform fee waiver forms and to submit the required supporting documentation establishing indigency. Close
- IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATES OF NICHOLAS CILENTO, ETC. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-3586-21 Appellate June 26, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. N.J.E. (14-04-0875, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0347-22 Appellate June 26, 2024
- DCPP VS. A.A., T.D., AND L.G., IN THE MATTER OF X.D. AND A.G. (FN-07-0175-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2016-22 Appellate June 26, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF JAMES DAVIS, HILLSIDE TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-2862-22 Appellate June 26, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF ALFRED L. ESPOSITO JR.'S APPLICATION, ETC. (GPA-0051-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2991-22 Appellate June 26, 2024
- PAUL J. TEMBY, ETC. VS. NICHOLAS PRIVITERA (L-0401-22, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3114-22 Appellate June 26, 2024
- ESTATE OF DONVILLE CAMPBELL, ETC. VS. WOODCLIFF HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, ET AL. (L-7744-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-3177-22/A-3178-22 Appellate June 26, 2024 Summary A-3177-22/A-3178-22 Plaintiff's decedent succumbed to the COVID-19 virus in May 2020. The Estate claims the decedent's death was a result of defendants' "negligent, grossly negligent, careless and reckless actions and omissions" in discharging his wife, from whom he allegedly contracted the disease, from defendant long-term care facility in April 2020, while the result of her PCR test was pending. Defendants notified the decedent's wife, their patient, and the decedent of the patient's positive test upon defendants' receipt of the result two days after her discharge. The decedent tested positive for the virus shortly thereafter. Defendants' patient survived her bout with the virus; the decedent tragically did not. The court reverses the denial of defendant health providers' motions to dismiss plaintiff's medical negligence, wrongful death and survival claim, finding, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, that there is no well-established common law rule in New Jersey that a "physician has the duty to warn third persons against possible exposure to contagious or infectious diseases," and that plaintiff has not otherwise pled any recognizable derivative duty defendants owed to the decedent. Although orders granting Rule 4:6-2 motions are ordinarily entered without prejudice, the Legislature's decision in the New Jersey COVID-19 Immunity Statute, L. 2020, c. 18, to temporarily limit the scope of whatever duty we might recognize defendants owed their patient and, derivatively, the decedent, to one of simply avoiding gross negligence during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic leaves plaintiff unable to state a claim on the facts alleged. It is not possible for a reasonable jury to find defendants were not simply negligent, but grossly negligent or reckless in discharging the decedent's wife to his care in April 2020, before knowing the result of her pending PCR test. Close
- TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON VS. PBA LOCAL 66, ET AL. (C-0012-23, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3351-22 Appellate June 26, 2024
- ZUMAR MUHAMMAD VS. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, ET AL. (L-4806-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1326-23 Appellate June 26, 2024
- STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC VS. NEW JERSEY CITY UNIVERSITY (L-2319-23, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1576-23 Appellate June 26, 2024
- ENGLEWOOD HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL. VS. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1434-17 AND L-1397-18, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2767-21 Appellate June 27, 2024 Summary A-2767-21 Plaintiff hospitals brought action challenging the charity care program that requires them to provide care to all patients regardless of their ability to pay, while also prohibiting them from billing patients who qualify for charity care under the statute. The trial court dismissed certain hospitals' claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As to the remaining claims, the trial court found that the regulations do not affect a constitutional taking under either a per se or Penn Central analysis. On de novo review, the court first addressed the ripeness issue. It held that plaintiffs raised facial challenges to charity care and therefore had properly raised their claims in the first instance with the trial court. Therefore, the court considered all plaintiff hospitals' constitutional takings claims. Next, the court held that plaintiffs failed to show either a per se or regulatory taking violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Paragraph 20 of the New Jersey Constitution. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment on the merits, but did so on different grounds, entering summary judgment against all plaintiffs, including those previously dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Close
- GETTY PROPERTIES CORP. VS. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (L-0006-19, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0473-22 Appellate June 27, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARCUS K. FLETCHER (22-01-0024, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1014-22 Appellate June 27, 2024
- JOSEPH GOODE VS. GREGORY VANEK, ET AL. (L-6006-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1241-22 Appellate June 27, 2024
- FPS RINK, LP, ETC. VS. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (L-1972-22, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2845-22/A-2846-22/A-3771-22 Appellate June 27, 2024
- S.H. VS. E.H. (FV-18-0506-23, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2971-22 Appellate June 27, 2024