- RICHARD REPACK VS. ILONA AKIMOVA (L-0483-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2147-21 Appellate May 9, 2023
- ACCOUNTEKS.NET, INC., ETC. VS. CKR LAW, LLP, ET AL. (C-000017-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1067-20 Appellate May 9, 2023 Summary A-1067-20 Plaintiff information technology firm brought multiple claims against defendants, its former employee and the law firm that hired him as its in-house technology specialist. Among other claims, plaintiff alleged the former employee breached his non-compete agreement with plaintiff by taking the job with the law firm, a long-term client of plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged the law firm tortiously interfered with the non-compete agreement between plaintiff and its former employee. After a trial, the Chancery Division enforced the non-compete agreement and found the law firm had tortiously interfered with the agreement between plaintiff and its former employee. The Chancery Division entered judgment against defendants for damages, including awarding of attorney's fees against the law firm as damages for its tortious interference. Defendants appealed. On appeal, the court held the Chancery Division properly awarded attorney's fees as damages for the law firm's tortious interference with contractual relations as an exception to the American Rule, pursuant to DiMisa v. Acquaviva , 198 N.J. 547 (2009). Close
- ACCOUNTEKS.NET, INC., ETC. VS. CKR LAW, LLP, ET AL. (C-000017-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ACCOUNTEKS.NET, INC., ETC. VS. CKR LAW, LLP, ET AL. (C-000017-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication], A-1067-20 Appellate May 9, 2023
- State v. Izaia M. Bullock (086196) (Middlesex County & Statewide) A-34-21 Supreme May 9, 2023 Oral Argument A-34-21 A-34-21 Part 1 Audio for A-34-21 Part 1 A-34-21 Part 2 Audio for A-34-21 Part 2 Close Summary A-34-21 Defendant’s statements in the courtyard and stationhouse were both properly suppressed. Under the totality of the circumstances, the courtyard statements must be suppressed because the Miranda warnings given in the courtyard were lacking and could not have apprised defendant of his rights such that any waiver and agreement to speak to police was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. By the time defendant arrived at the police department and was given full Miranda warnings, he had already admitted to the very crime that the officers were investigating. Defendant had “let the cat out of the bag” with his admissions, see State v. Carrion , 249 N.J. 253, 275-76 (2021), so the psychological pressure of having already confessed was not cured by the administration of Miranda warnings prior to the interview at the station. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PERFIS PENA-NUNEZ (15-03-0246, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0729-21 Appellate May 10, 2023
- B'NAI B'RITH CHESILHURST HOUSE VS. SAMUEL SUMMERS (LT-003207-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1225-21 Appellate May 10, 2023
- 806 6TH ST HCPVI LLC VS. ANA TINEO REYES, ET AL. (LT-003235-19, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1383-21 Appellate May 10, 2023
- NATALE CHILDREN, LLC VS. CROWN BANK, ETC. (C-000073-21, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2773-21 Appellate May 10, 2023
- FRANKLIN LAKES AFFORDABLE REALTY, LLC VS. BRADFORD VANCE, ET AL. (LT-004403-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0610-22 Appellate May 10, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANGELO MAURO (19-10-1682, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-1900-22/A-2279-22 Appellate May 10, 2023 Summary A-1900-22/A-2279-22 In Docket No. A-1900-22, the court first granted the State leave to appeal from the propriety of a Law Division judge's pretrial decision that barred the admission of location data from the alleged victim's cell phone and a voice mail purportedly sent from the defendant to his co-defendant. The motion judge barred the evidence because it was provided by the State after the judge's December 9, 2021 decision that mandated the production of any outstanding discovery by January 6, 2022. While that appeal was pending, in Docket No. A-2279-22, the court also granted the State leave to appeal from a February 21, 2023 Law Division order issued by the same judge, denying the State's motion for reconsideration of an October 7, 2022 order. That order had barred the admission of two text messages allegedly sent by defendant as cumulative to other stipulated N.J.R.E. 404(b) evidence and fraught with impermissible hearsay. The court considered the lengthy procedural history in view of the governing legal principles, including its discretionary standard of review. Unable to conclude on the record provided that the motion judge abused his discretion in either appeal, the court affirmed. Close
- Jersey City Two, LLC v. Jersey City 012480-2020, 012481-2020, 012482-2020, 012483-2020, 009826-2021, 009827-2021, 009828-2021, 009825-2021 Tax May 9, 2023
- JAMES LONG, ET AL. VS. NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY (NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY) A-1557-17 Appellate May 11, 2023
- IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN OTTERBINE, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-3772-20 Appellate May 11, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. REGGIE A. BROWN (98-03-0201, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0870-21 Appellate May 11, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LOUIS ADAMS (09-09-0823 AND 09-09-0825, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0986-21 Appellate May 11, 2023
- PARADIGM HEDGE, LLC, ET AL. VS. MARIE CERLIONE, ET AL. (L-2934-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1161-21 Appellate May 11, 2023
- M.C.K. VS. A.D. (FV-04-1139-22, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1209-21 Appellate May 11, 2023
- WILLIAM SUAREZ VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-2818-20 Appellate May 12, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DOUGLAS LUKA (6265, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0302-21 Appellate May 12, 2023
- ULTIMATE FORCE, LLC VS. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ROCHELLE PARK, ET AL. (L-1515-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0563-21 Appellate May 12, 2023