- RICHARD H. LAMBDON VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) A-1212-23 Appellate March 28, 2025
- RENE EDGHILL SMITH VS. NEW BRUNSWICK BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-1445-20, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1642-23 Appellate March 28, 2025
- PENELOPE MAUER VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-0197-17 AND L-0388-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0108-24 Appellate March 28, 2025 Summary A-0108-24 The primary issue addressed by the court in this appeal is whether the indictment of a partner in a law firm, who withdrew his appearance following the indictment, creates a conflict of interest requiring the law firm to be disqualified from representing defendants, the State of New Jersey and other State entities. Because the underlying indictment was not related to the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, and contract claims filed by plaintiff in the civil action, the court concluded no conflict of interest existed pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Office of the Attorney General, Outside Counsel Guidelines (2022). The court affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for disqualification. Close
- BLANCA ANAELY VILLEDA-GRANADOS, ET AL. VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. (L-1019-23, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3979-23 Appellate March 28, 2025
- JOSEPH ARGENZIANO, ETC. VS. KATHLEEN FABLE, ETC. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-0273-23 Appellate March 28, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FRANCK A. AMANG (23-01-0039, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3406-22 Appellate March 31, 2025 Summary A-3406-22 This appeal raises a question of first impression under New Jersey law, requiring the court to consider the interplay between the right against self-incrimination, the right to privacy in one's home and effects, and the right to the assistance of counsel. Following defendant's arrest for assaulting his daughters, police administered Miranda warnings and defendant asserted his right to confer with an attorney. The interrogation process immediately ceased. Police went back to the still detained defendant a few hours later and asked him to consent to a search of his home, which he granted. Defendant contends that police did not scrupulously honor his earlier request to consult with an attorney, rendering his consent invalid. The court surveyed cases in other jurisdictions and analyzed different options for how to account for defendant's request to confer with an attorney: (1) treat the prior request as a factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances test used to determine whether consent was given voluntarily; (2) require police when asking for consent to clarify whether a prior request to confer with counsel pertained only to the right against self-incrimination and not to the waiver of other constitutional rights; or (3) treat the prior request to confer with an attorney as a per se bar from asking for consent. After considering the heightened protections accorded to suspects in custody under the New Jersey Constitution and common law, New Jersey's history and tradition of honoring the protective role that defense attorneys play, and the stricter rules in this State for proving the validity of a consent search, the court establishes a bright-line rule to provide clear guidance to police: when a person in custody asks to speak with an attorney, police may not thereafter ask the arrestee to consent to a search when there has been no break in custody. Doing so renders the consent presumptively involuntary. In this case, the trial judge found that the State met its burden of proving the elements of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule by clear and convincing evidence. The court finds no error in the trial judge's application of the inevitable discovery doctrine and affirms defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of the assault firearm and large capacity ammunition magazines police found when executing the consent search. The court also affirms defendant's conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, rejecting defendant's contention the trial judge erred in instructing the jury by failing to sua sponte redact language in the model jury charge not pertinent to the evidence presented by the prosecutor. The court, however, reverses and remands for a new trial on the downgraded simple assault charges because the judge did not adequately respond to a question posed by the jury concerning a parent's authority to use corporal punishment. Close
- SHARON DAVIDSON VS. ROBERT LEWIS (L-0138-20, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1127-22 Appellate March 31, 2025
- JERSEY CITY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, INC., LOCAL 245 VS. CITY OF JERSEY CITY A-0481-23 Appellate March 31, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHEM WALKER (03-09-3069, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0511-23 Appellate March 31, 2025
- CESAR CARIT RUIZ VS. WILLIAM T. BOURKE, ET AL. (L-8212-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0783-23 Appellate March 31, 2025
- LISA FLAX VS. GLENN HANN (FM-03-0616-19, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1257-23 Appellate March 31, 2025
- LAURA DILAURA VS. EDWARD DILAURA, SR. (FM-16-1348-97, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1869-23 Appellate March 31, 2025
- OLGA MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS. BOP FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, ET AL. (L-3054-23, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2643-23 Appellate March 31, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TONY T. YUSUFOV (24-002, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2824-23 Appellate March 31, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FAUSTO RAMIRO SANTOS CARILLO (22-11-0848, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0308-24 Appellate March 31, 2025
- State of New Jersey v. Ronal Ordonez-Lima MER-21-3860 Trial March 27, 2025
- State of New Jersey v. Terrance White MER-22-0011 Trial March 27, 2025
- LATASHA WALKER-HARRISON VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-2657-15 Appellate April 1, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TIMOTHY M. CHAMBERS (15-09-0630, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4004-22 Appellate April 1, 2025
- IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF PATERSON, ET AL. (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) A-2426-23 Appellate April 1, 2025