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

Search

  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. J.M. (2022-05, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2984-21 Appellate May 17, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TIMOTHY PUSKAS (16-07-1220, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3106-21 Appellate May 17, 2023
  • JAN KONOPKA VS. BROWN'S HEATING, COOLING, PLUMBING (DC-010496-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4528-18 Appellate May 18, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. QUINN M. LATNEY (20-02-0123, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0462-20 Appellate May 18, 2023
  • E.O. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES) A-1308-21 Appellate May 18, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CYNTHIA RIVERA (18-05-0681, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2188-21 Appellate May 18, 2023
  • WILLIAM PACE, ET AL. VS. HAMILTON COVE, ET AL. (L-1076-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0674-22 Appellate May 18, 2023 Summary A-0674-22           Plaintiffs are tenants at a luxury apartment building complex.  They claim they were defrauded by defendant landlords' knowingly false promises in its advertisements, brochures, and oral statements to prospective tenants that the apartment complex would have "elevated, 24/7 security" and that security personnel would be stationed 24/7 at a podium near each building's entrance.  Plaintiffs allege they relied on these representations in deciding to lease the apartments at the rent level charged.            Upon moving into the apartments, plaintiffs learned that the apartment complex's security cameras did not function, and security personnel were only stationed at the front of the building from approximately 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, with shorter hours on weekends, as opposed to being present 24/7, and at times were present during those hours when performing other assigned tasks.            The lease contained a three-day attorney review clause and had several addendums, including a waiver of the right to file a class action against the landlord.  The lease did not contain an arbitration agreement.            Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging common law fraud and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act against their landlord.  Prior to discovery or class certification, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to strike plaintiffs' class action allegations.  Defendants argued the class action waiver in plaintiffs' lease agreements were clear and unambiguous and the lease was not a contract of adhesion.  Plaintiffs argued the lease was a contract of adhesion, the class waiver was unconscionable, and the caselaw upholding class action waivers were inapplicable because the contracts in those cases included an arbitration provision.  The trial court denied the motion in its entirety.  Defendants' motion for leave to appeal that interlocutory ruling was granted.            The court affirmed the denial of defendants' motion, holding that a waiver of the right to maintain a class action is unenforceable absent an arbitration agreement.  Noting that the class action waiver dismantled or disabled important procedures provided in our Part IV rules, and that the public policy of this state favors a class action where numerous claims involve a common nucleus of facts, the court adopts a bright-line rule that in the absence of an arbitration agreement, class action waivers are unenforceable as a matter of law and public policy.  Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DONNIE E. HARRELL (19-12-0852, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1908-22 Appellate May 18, 2023 Summary A-1908-22           In this appeal, the court considers the propriety of a Law Division order, excluding several allegations of sexual abuse against defendant that were memorialized in the child-victim's videorecorded statement to law enforcement.  The trial judge had admitted the entire statement under the tender-years exception to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27).  At that time, the judge found the statement trustworthy, noting the alleged victim, who was eight years old when she gave her statement, would be called as a witness at trial.             Prior to trial, the State informed the defense the child was unable to recall all but one incident.  During the ensuing N.J.R.E. 104 hearing, the alleged victim, now fifteen years old, acknowledged she no longer recalled certain sexual conduct asserted in her tender-years statement.  The trial judge granted defendant's in limine motion, limiting the child's testimony to the only allegation she recalled, and ordered her videorecorded statement redacted accordingly.  The judge determined the child's lack of memory rendered her unavailable for cross-examination on the incidents she could not recall, thereby violating defendant's right of confrontation.             During jury selection in the now-adjourned trial, the court granted the State's emergent application to file a motion for leave to appeal, granted leave, and now reverses the Law Division order.  The court holds defendant's right of confrontation is not violated by admission of the child's entire videorecorded statement under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), previously deemed trustworthy by the trial judge, provided the victim testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination.  The court therefore concludes the trial judge improperly parsed, and erroneously excluded, those alleged incidents the victim does not recall.  Close
  • DEEGAN ROOFING, INC. VS. RICHARD BAHADURIAN (L-0145-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0053-21 Appellate May 19, 2023
  • SVETLANA SHIFRIN-DOUGLAS VS. ALEXANDER SHIFRIN (FM-13-0056-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0566-21 Appellate May 19, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KHAWAR SALEEM (18-12-1343, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2138-21 Appellate May 19, 2023
  • L.H. VS. D.T.H. (FV-02-0680-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2910-21 Appellate May 19, 2023
  • VERONICA VILLALOBOS, ET AL. VS. BEAST COAST MOVING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. (L-0815-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3074-21 Appellate May 19, 2023
  • DCPP VS. C.I. AND N.R., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.N.I. (FG-15-0005-21, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3886-21 Appellate May 19, 2023
  • YAAKOV SIEGEL, ET AL. VS. US COASTAL INSURANCE COMPANY (L-1300-21, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1203-22 Appellate May 19, 2023
  • N.T. VS. A.T. (FV-13-0817-09, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0404-21 Appellate May 22, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NICHOLAS GOMEZ-ZUNIGA (18-06-1146, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0601-21 Appellate May 22, 2023
  • BAYONNE HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. ORASHA WILKES (LT-000099-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1503-21 Appellate May 22, 2023
  • DIN NARAIN, ET AL. VS. GEORGE HARMS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ET AL. (L-1702-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3393-21 Appellate May 22, 2023
  • GUY CITRON, ET AL. VS. CINCH REAL ESTATE, INC., ET AL. (L-1312-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1221-22 Appellate May 22, 2023