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

Search

  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DARON J. SIMMS (14-11-1987, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2298-20 Appellate May 25, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALEXANDRI GOMEZ (15-08-0948, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0875-21 Appellate May 25, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT M.H. (ML-95-18-0024, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1189-21 Appellate May 25, 2023 Summary A-1189-21 M.H., a Tier II registrant, filed a motion to terminate his Megan's Law obligations under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f).  The court affirmed the denial of registrant's application as he committed a failure to report offense within fifteen years of his conviction.  The court also rejected M.H.'s facial and as applied due process and equal protection challenges to subsection (f).  In doing so, the court relied principally on the reasoning set forth in Doe v. Poritz , 142 N.J. 1 (1995), which upheld as constitutional Megan's Law's registration and community notification provisions, and In re Registrant A.D. , 441 N.J. Super. 403, 420 (App. Div. 2015).  The court also rejected registrant's reliance on State in Interest of C.K. , 233 N.J. 44 (2018), as that case addressed a juvenile's challenge to subsection (g), and the authority relied upon by the court in concluding subsection (g) was unconstitutional to juveniles is inapplicable to M.H.'s challenges to subsection (f).  Close
  • DCPP VS. N.D. AND T.A., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.D. (FG-20-0024-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1321-21/A-1588-21 Appellate May 25, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAHEED M. CARSON (17-11-1341, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1586-21 Appellate May 25, 2023
  • ARBUS, MAYBRUCH & GOODE, LLC VS. DANIEL COHEN, ET AL. (L-2646-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2168-21 Appellate May 25, 2023 Summary A-2168-21 In this appeal from summary judgment in a breach of contract action, defendants argue plaintiff law firm violated rules of professional conduct by failing to disclose in its retainer agreement the unit of incremental billing – one tenth of an hour – it would utilize during the course of representation.  Plaintiff and defendants entered two retainer agreements, both of which disclosed a required initial deposit, the hourly rates of each attorney at the firm, and which party was responsible for certain administrative costs.  Plaintiff represented defendants for more than two years pursuant to the parties' retainer agreements, sending monthly and bimonthly invoices throughout the duration demonstrating work billed in increments of one-tenth of an hour.  When defendants refused to remain current with outstanding fees, plaintiff ceased representation and instituted the breach of contract action. The trial court granted summary judgment.  Defendants urged reversal on appeal. The court affirmed summary judgment as properly granted, and held the retainer agreement was lawful and ethical where, among other things, it sufficiently apprised the clients of the express terms of the agreement in accordance with RPC 1.5(b), and the parties' course of conduct for two years demonstrated assent to those terms. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ZAK A. MISSAK (W-2021-0485-1808, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) Previously filed on May 25, 2023. A-0193-22 Appellate May 25, 2023 Summary A-0193-22 Law enforcement officers arrested defendant when he appeared for what he understood to be a sexual encounter with a fourteen-year-old girl with whom he believed he had exchanged text messages on the two preceding days.   In fact, defendant exchanged the messages with a detective using two different cellular phone applications.  After seizing defendant's phone, the officers obtained a search warrant for the phone and an order requiring defendant provide the phone's passcode.    The court reverses an order denying defendant's motion to quash the search warrant, which authorized a search of all the phone's data.  The court holds the affidavit supporting issuance of the warrant did not establish probable cause to search all the phone's data.  The court also determines probable cause to search all the data on a phone is not established by merely demonstrating the phone's data may include evidence of criminal activity.  The court further concludes a search of data on a cell phone must be limited to only the particular data for which law enforcement establishes probable cause to believe includes evidence of criminal activity, and a search warrant affidavit must define the locations of such data on the phone to the extent possible based on available technology. Close
  • MICHAEL J. MORLEY, III, ETC. VS. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) A-2994-20 Appellate May 26, 2023
  • RALPH ANGELES VS. NEVIER RUIZ, ET AL. (L-0468-19, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3751-20 Appellate May 26, 2023
  • INVESTORS COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC VS. JARIVETTE ANDUJAR, ET AL. (L-0195-19, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2354-21 Appellate May 26, 2023
  • STATE IN THE INTEREST OF C.S., A JUVENILE (FJ-09-0256-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2506-21 Appellate May 26, 2023
  • PETER KALLOO VS. NEW YORK NEW JERSEY RAIL, LLC (L-4312-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2697-21 Appellate May 26, 2023
  • DCPP VS. T.A.R., Y.R., AND J.J.E., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.M.R., N.A.R., J.I.R., J.N.R., AND Y.J.R. (FG-07-0039-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3263-21 Appellate May 26, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OSHER EISEMANN, (18-04-0059, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0186-22/A-0187-22 Appellate May 26, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAHAAD I. JONES (22-07-1704 AND 22-07-1705, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1243-22 Appellate May 26, 2023 Summary A-1243-22 The court granted defendant Shahaad I. Jones leave to appeal from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence — a handgun and large capacity magazine — seized without a warrant from his person.  The court finds the motion court erred by deciding the suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing because defendant's brief submitted in accordance with Rule 3:5-7(b) raised fact issues as to whether the warrantless search of defendant was justified under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.  The court also determined the motion court erred by concluding the statutory rebuttable presumption under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(q) — that, where law enforcement either fails to adhere to the statutory retention requirements found in N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.3 to -118.5 for body worn camera (BWC) recordings, or intentionally interferes with a BWC's ability to accurately capture audio and video recordings, the law presumes exculpatory evidence was destroyed or not captured — applies only at trials and not at suppression hearings.  The court finds the plain language of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118 does not support the motion court's determination and holds that because the statute expressly states the presumption is applicable in "criminal prosecutions," the rebuttable presumption applies in suppression hearings.  The court reverses the motion court's order denying defendant's suppression motion and remands for further proceedings, including for a determination of whether defendant demonstrates an entitlement to the rebuttable presumption under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(q), and, if so, whether the State rebuts the presumption.  Close
  • Yang, Daniel & Lucy v. Montclair Twp. 000114-2022 and 005720-2022 Tax May 25, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. G.T.C. (14-05-0052, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2147-20 Appellate May 30, 2023
  • CONSTRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, INC., ETC. VS. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (L-1814-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1230-21 Appellate May 30, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HASSEIN A. FERRELL (19-05-0146, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1506-21 Appellate May 30, 2023
  • GUSTAVO CIFUENTES, ET AL. VS. EMIRO FRANCO, ET AL. (L-0135-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1689-21 Appellate May 30, 2023