- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DERRICK ROUNDTREE (95-05-1720, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0541-24 Appellate Jan. 16, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FRANK SAGGESE (17-04-0347, 17-06-0550, 17-06-0561 AND 17-07-0706, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1342-24 Appellate Jan. 16, 2026
- MICHAEL MCMAHON, ET AL. VS. KARCHIK HOMES, ET AL. (L-1968-22, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3081-24 Appellate Jan. 16, 2026
- State v. Johnson and Montgomery MER-24-1611 Trial Jan. 15, 2026
- CONGREGATION SONS OF ISRAEL VS. CONGREGATION MEOROSNOSSON, INC., ET AL. (C-000239-12 and L-2664-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2790-21/A-1339-22 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ISAIAH SEBRELL (16-05-1398, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0116-24 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- MOERAE MATRIX, INC. VS. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, ET AL. (L-0371-22, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0203-24 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- LOUIS CIVELLO, JR. VS. VADIM CHEPOVETSKY, ET AL. (F-004193-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0324-24 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- N.R. VS. S.G. (FV-12-0206-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0626-24 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- GLEN R. SPONAUGLE VS. CAROL WALSH, ET AL. (L-0223-23, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0833-24 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- FREDERICK HESSELBIRG VS. BOROUGH OF ROSELAND, ET AL. (L-6848-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2058-24 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- SHAUN MORRELL VS. RETROFITNESS, LLC, ET AL. (L-7998-20, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3294-23 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- Despina Alice Christakos v. Anthony A. Boyadjis, Esq. (090214) (Morris County and Statewide) A-42-24 Supreme Jan. 20, 2026 Oral Argument A-42-24 A-42-24 Audio for A-42-24 Close Summary A-42-24 The Court adopts the standard set forth in Section 51 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers for determining when an attorney owes a duty of care to a non-client. Here, the defendant attorney did not owe non-client plaintiff Helen Christakos a duty of care under either Section 51(2) or Section 51(3). Close
- ESTATE OF MICHAEL R. MONIHAN AND HOLLY P. MONIHAN V DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION 012125-2021 Tax Jan. 16, 2026 Summary 012125-2021, STATE AND LOCAL TAX – GROSS INCOME TAX ACT – W-2 WAGES AND COMMISSIONS -- BROKERS ACT -- INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT, Tax Court: Estate of Michael R. Monihan and Holly P. Monihan v. Dir., Div. of Taxation , Docket No. 012125-2021; opinion by Nugent, J.T.C., decided January 2026. For plaintiff - Howard Pashman, Esq., and Justin P. Kolbenschlag, Esq., (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, PC, attorneys); for defendant – Judith O’Malley, Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). HELD: Taxpayer’s independent contractor election under the Brokers Act, N.J.S.A. 45:15-1 to -34, was not a legitimate basis to challenge Taxation’s reclassification of Taxpayer’s 1099 commission income as W-2 income, due to the Legislature not intending to legislate tax classifications in the Brokers Act. Michael Monihan (Taxpayer), as a broker and broker-salesperson with Monihan Realty, Inc., had entered an independent contractor agreement (ICA) with the company. In reliance on the ICA, Taxpayer reported his commissions earned from sales and rental of real estate as 1099 income. Decided on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court rejected Taxpayer’s plain meaning interpretation of the Brokers Act’s “notwithstanding” clause, where Taxpayer suggested that the business affiliation elected must override any conflicting classifications from Gross Income Tax (GIT) Act, N.J.S.A. 54:5A-1 to 12-6, and its administrative withholding regulation, N.J.A.C. 18:35-7. Per the court, the clause’s override of “any other law, rule, or regulation to the contrary” applies when there is a conflict between the overall statutory schemes of the Brokers Act and the GIT Act, not the results attained by their respective applications. The court determined that the Brokers Act’s statutory scheme of regulating the licensing and business activities of the real estate professionals covered therein did not conflict with the GIT Act’s statutory scheme to tax expressly identified classes of income, specifically, N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1(a) and 1(b). Thus, the Brokers Act does not supplant the GIT Act or N.J.A.C. 18:35-7. The court further found that Kennedy v. Weichert , 257 N.J. 290 (2024), where the Supreme Court interpreted the Brokers Act, is not determinative in assessing the validity of reclassification of Taxpayer’s commission income. Taxation’s basis for reclassification was properly placed on N.J.A.C. 18:35-7.1, where Taxpayer is a corporate officer defined as an employee under the regulation. The court thereby upheld Taxation’s reclassification of Taxpayer’s 1099 commissions as W-2 income, granted Taxation’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied Taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment. (34 pages) Close
- IN THE MATTER OF NICOLE-KIRSTIE, LLC VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) (RESUBMITTED) A-2308-21 Appellate Jan. 20, 2026
- IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF NIKHIL S. PARIKH, M.D., ETC. (NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS) A-2667-23 Appellate Jan. 21, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID F. HOHSFIELD (18-06-0716, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3867-23 Appellate Jan. 21, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL A. HOWEY (08-04-24, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0962-24 Appellate Jan. 21, 2026
- E.C.F. VS. A.K. (FV-09-2305-24, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1232-24 Appellate Jan. 21, 2026
- IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF L.R. (SVP-700-14, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1346-24 Appellate Jan. 21, 2026