- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LANCE BOONE (21-05-0797, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1750-23 Appellate April 25, 2025
- DCPP VS. R.H., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.H. (FG-03-0014-24, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3951-23 Appellate April 25, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL J. BALBOSA (18-12-1603, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0024-23 Appellate April 25, 2025 Summary A-0024-23 The court affirmed the PCR court's denial of defendant's Strickland-based ineffective assistance of counsel claims and concluded: (1) subsections (a) and (b) of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(1) do not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because they criminalize the possession and distribution of child pornography and are neither overbroad nor vague. To the extent this conclusion regarding subsections (a) and (b) is contrary to the decision in State v. Higginbotham, 475 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2023), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 257 N.J. 260 (2024), the court expressly rejects the holding in Higginbotham; and (2) the State's investigation and subsequent prosecution did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANGEL ALICEA (07-06-2114, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2995-22 Appellate April 28, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN C. VANNESS (13-01-0050 AND 15-01-0057, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0230-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- PINNACLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS. AARON CHANDLER (L-3482-14, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0793-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- FAISAL JAMEEL, ETC. VS. JENNIFER L. DEMBER, ET AL. (L-7038-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1225-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- HELENSBURGH VENTURES, LLC VS. GEORGE R. GILMORE, ET AL. (L-2096-20, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1288-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- STEVEN DAIGNAULT VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) A-1357-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LOUIS P. URCINOLI (95-10-1008, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1557-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- V.J.R. VS. R.F.R. (FV-02-2157-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1649-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- DONALD J. UNGER VS. EDWARD DWYER, ET AL. (C-000248-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2212-23 Appellate April 28, 2025
- J.H. VS. WARREN HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-0423-21, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2896-23 Appellate April 28, 2025 Summary A-2896-23 In 2019, the Legislature enacted two laws, which amended and supplemented the statutes of limitations and procedural requirements for civil actions alleging sexual abuse. See L. 2019, c. 120 (Chapter 120); L. 2019, c. 239 (Chapter 239). As part of those amendments, the Legislature eliminated the notice requirement in the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, for victims of sexual abuse. See Chapter 120, § 8 (codified at N.J.S.A. 59:8-3(b)). The Legislature also expanded the type of persons and entities that can be liable for sexual abuse by amending the Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSA Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:61B-1, to eliminate the requirement that a passive abuser be "within the household" of the victim. See Chapter 120, § 4. The court holds that the 2019 amendment eliminating the notice requirement in the TCA applies to common law claims that are directly related to the sexual abuse of a minor. The court also holds that the 2019 amendment to the CSA Act, which eliminated the "within the household" requirement, applies to any action filed after December 1, 2019, and that it is not limited to claims that accrued after December 1, 2019. Accordingly, in this matter, the court affirms a November 30, 2023 order denying partial summary judgment to defendants Warren Hills Board of Education (the Board) and Warren Hills Junior High School (the Junior High School). The Board and the Junior High School had moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff's common law claims should be dismissed because he did not file a timely notice of claim under the TCA, and they were not subject to liability under the CSA Act. The court also affirms an April 11, 2024 order denying the Board's and the Junior High School's motion for reconsideration. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. C.C.W. (24-01-0008, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3637-23 Appellate April 29, 2025 Summary A-3637-23 This appeal presents a novel statutory construction question under the Overdose Prevention Act (OPA), which is designed to save lives by "encouraging people who witness or experience a suspected drug overdose to seek medical assistance. . . ." N.J.S.A. 24:6J-2. The OPA confers immunity to certain offenders charged with minor drug use/possession crimes that were discovered because police responded to a 911 call for medical assistance. In this case, defendant's friend called 911 to report that she told him that she "wanted to commit suicide." He also reported that defendant "uses crystal meth." Defendant was charged with simple possession of a small amount of methamphetamine found in her wallet by hospital staff. Acknowledging that the OPA is a remedial statute to be interpreted liberally, the court probes the boundaries of the Act's definition of the term "drug overdose," focusing on whether the threat of suicide that prompted the 911 call was the result of defendant's use of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS). The court stresses that the OPA's definition of "drug overdose" is broader than the common meaning of that term. Notably, the statutory definition does not require that the subject is presently intoxicated or "under the influence" of a CDS. Nor does the statutory definition require proof that the drug consumption occurred just before the acute condition arose. The court therefore holds the OPA's plain language does not foreclose the possibility that a defendant might qualify for immunity based on their chronic use of a CDS, i.e., an addiction, provided the defendant proves the acute condition requiring medical assistance was the result of such prior CDS use. The court also holds a psychiatric evaluation may constitute "medical assistance" within the meaning of the OPA, ruling that a person suffering from a psychiatric disorder is not categorically ineligible for immunity. Because the trial court did not focus on the causal nexus between defendant's CDS use and her suicidal ideations, the court remands for a new hearing to address whether defendant can establish that the suicide concerns that prompted the 911 call were attributable to her methamphetamine use. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. J.T.G. (17-10-0967, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3097-22 Appellate April 29, 2025
- KAREN HENDRIE VS. FRANCIS HENDRIE (FM-20-1259-22, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1391-23 Appellate April 29, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BASHIR PEARSON, ET AL. (21-02-0031 AND 21-02-0032, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2475-22/A-2529-22 Appellate April 29, 2025
- IN THE MATTER OF S.L., DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-1459-23 Appellate April 29, 2025
- JANE DOE VS. ZETA PSI FRATERNITY, INC., ET AL. (L-6507-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1613-23 Appellate April 29, 2025
- LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY VS. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0595-23/A-0596-23 Appellate April 29, 2025