- Tyler DePina and Dina DePina v. Dir., Div. of Taxation 010254-2023 Tax Sept. 16, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TRAVIS M. GALLO (14-12-1809, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3807-21 Appellate Sept. 18, 2024
- RIDGE PROPERTY, LLC VS. PETER LEE, ET AL. (L-0309-19 AND L-0198-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1439-22 Appellate Sept. 18, 2024
- KARL KOVACS VS. THE WOOD DUCK POND NEIGHBORHOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. (L-0787-22, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2373-22 Appellate Sept. 18, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANA KEARNEY (16-10-1645, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2638-22 Appellate Sept. 18, 2024 Summary A-2638-22 Defendant, who was convicted of murder and other offenses at his 2017 jury trial, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief ("PCR") without an evidentiary hearing. He alleges his trial counsel's representation was compromised because his co-parent and girlfriend, who was called at trial as a fact witness for the State, paid for the legal fees of his private criminal defense attorney. Defendant contends the fee arrangement created an untenable conflict of interest. The court affirms the PCR judge's determination that defendant was not deprived of effective representation of his counsel, who represented him zealously at trial. In particular, defense counsel vigorously cross examined the witness who had paid his fees about certain incriminating statements she made about defendant to police detectives. The fee arrangement, of which defendant was surely aware, did not create a per se conflict of interest that disqualified his counsel in the circumstances presented. Nor has defendant shown he was actually prejudiced or subject to a great likelihood of such prejudice. Going forward, the court recommends that private criminal defense counsel document the client's informed consent with a written acknowledgment or some other recorded means at the time the third-party payer's fee arrangement is made. There may be instances in which the payer's testimony for the State is anticipated to be so hostile to a defendant's interests that the lawyer is, in fact, materially limited, but this is not one of them. Close
- JAMIE DYKES, ET AL. VS. COUNTY OF HUDSON, ET AL. (L-1577-19, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2709-22 Appellate Sept. 18, 2024
- JESSE ROSENBLUM VS. BOROUGH OF CLOSTER, ET AL. (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) A-3017-22 Appellate Oct. 10, 2024
- ET MANAGEMENT & INVESTORS, LLC VS. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN (L-3759-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3864-22 Appellate Oct. 10, 2024
- SCOTT DIAMOND, ET AL. VS. WARREN DIAMOND (L-0977-23, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0346-23 Appellate Oct. 10, 2024
- R.W. VS. R.B. (FV-20-2087-94, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0780-23 Appellate Oct. 10, 2024
- CHRISTINE IVALIOTIS VS. COVERED BRIDGE CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL. (L-3147-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1744-22 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. THOMAS GILLAS (20-01-0090, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2012-22 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- M.L. VS. P.J. (FM-07-1706-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2728-22 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- JUAN ROJAS VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-3326-22 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VS. AFEEZ AYINDE (DC-007497-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3751-22 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- M.P.H. VS. S.M.S. (FV-10-0144-24, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0265-23 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- STEPHANIE CSAKEN VS. GORDON BYRON MEAD (FM-03-1111-09, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0549-23 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEGWIN CLARKE (22-12-1430, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3381-23 Appellate Oct. 11, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KESHAWN MCNEIL (07-10-3548, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0975-22 Appellate Oct. 15, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. D.C.-M. (16-02-0347, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1795-22 Appellate Oct. 15, 2024