- BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC VS. REZA FARZAN, ET AL. (F-013470-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2336-21 Appellate June 7, 2023
- THERESA C. GRABOWSKI VS. WILLIAM BASKAY, ET AL. (L-0736-19, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2785-21 Appellate June 7, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FRANCISCO ARTEAGA (21-01-0035, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3078-21 Appellate June 7, 2023 Summary A-3078-21 Following the robbery of a store in West New York, police retrieved surveillance video from a nearby building and sent a still photo from the video to the New Jersey Regional Operations Intelligence Center (NJROIC) to help identify the perpetrator using facial recognition technology (FRT). When the NJROIC could not find a match, police sent all the raw video footage to the Facial Identification Section of the New York Police Department Real Time Crime Center (NYPD RTCC), where a detective captured a still image, compared it against the center's databases, and offered defendant as a possible match. Police subsequently included the photo from the NYPD RTCC along with five filler photos to construct photo arrays to show two eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses identified defendant as the perpetrator, and he was subsequently charged. Defendant sent the State a discovery demand containing thirteen items seeking information regarding the FRT used to identify him. He also moved to suppress the out-of-court identifications by the eyewitnesses. The trial court conducted a Wade [1] hearing and denied the suppression motion. Meanwhile the State obtained documents from the NYPD RTCC answering two of the thirteen discovery demands. Defendant moved to compel the State to answer the remaining discovery requests, arguing the discovery was: necessary to impeach the eyewitness identification; impeach the police investigation; and exculpatory. Defendant's motion included a declaration from an FRT expert, detailing why the information sought was relevant and explaining the vulnerabilities of FRT, including problems with its reliability. The trial court denied the motion to compel. On leave granted, defendant re-asserts the arguments made to the trial court. Amici joins in defendant's arguments on appeal. The court held the discovery dispute was a separate matter than the Wade hearing and defendant was entitled to the discovery to construct a defense and for impeachment purposes. Discovery into the FRT was necessary because it is a novel and untested technology, and no New Jersey court has addressed the issue. Moreover, the discovery sought was attainable because: the State raised no proprietary objections; had already obtained some discovery from the NYPD RTCC; and the items sought regarded defendant's identification and reliability of the identification process. The court reversed and remanded for entry of an order compelling the State to provide the eleven remaining items of discovery. The trial court is authorized to enter a protective order, order the in-camera review of the materials received from the State, and hold a Daubert [2] hearing, if necessary. [1] United States v. Wade , 338 U.S. 218 (1967). [2] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Close
- NAKIA CLOWERS VS. CITY OF NEWARK (L-0274-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3288-21 Appellate June 7, 2023
- Philip Pantano v. New York Shipping Association (087217) (Middlesex County & Statewide) A-19-22 Supreme June 5, 2023 Oral Argument A-19-22 A-19-22 Part-1 Audio for A-19-22 Part-1 A-19-22 Part-2 Audio for A-19-22 Part-2 Close Summary A-19-22 Application of the Galvao multi-factor test -- which can involve matters of disputed fact and witness credibility -- is presumptively for a jury to determine. The court itself should not resolve the borrowed-employee issue unless the evidence concerning the factors is so one-sided that it warrants judgment in a moving party’s favor as a matter of law. Because the evidence in this case concerning the Galvao factors was not sufficiently one-sided, the trial court incorrectly granted defendant’s Rule 4:40-1 motion and deemed the worker who caused the accident a borrowed employee of plaintiff’s own employer. Close
- AG Kings Montclair LLC v. Montclair Township 005317-2018, 003518-2019, 002133-2020, and 005949-2021 Tax June 2, 2023
- State v. Barry Berry; State v. Kenneth Daniels; State v. Levell Burnett (086838) (Essex County & Statewide) A-8-22 Supreme June 7, 2023 Oral Argument A-8-22 A-8-22 Audio for A-8-22 Close Summary A-8-22 Judges are encouraged, when practical, to respond “yes” or “no” to unambiguous and specific questions posed by juries during deliberations rather than solely re-read sections of the final jury charge. In general, when a specific request for clarification clearly calls for and is capable of a “yes” or “no” answer, like here, then judges should respond accordingly. Here, the answer to the jury’s question is indisputably “yes,” one can be a “supervisor” but not hold a “high-level” position in a drug trafficking network. Instead of responding “yes” to the question, however, the judge re-read the entire model kingpin charge; opined that those elements, three and four, sounded similar; and may have implicitly suggested that being a “supervisor” is sufficient to establish that a defendant held a “high-level” position within such an organization. The response to the question was an error clearly capable of producing an unjust result. Close
- Deborah Heart and Lung Center v. Our Lady of Lourdes Health Care Services BUR-L-1235-19 Trial June 6, 2023
- Dental Health Associates South Jersey, P.A. v. RRI Gibbsboro, LLC CAM-L-003993-20 Trial June 6, 2023
- STEPHEN A. NORTH VS. ANTHONY EMPOSIMATO (L-2332-18, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3095-20 Appellate June 8, 2023
- P.R. AND U.R. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0024-21 Appellate June 8, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTWINE RIVERA (13-01-0049, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0078-21 Appellate June 8, 2023
- DAVID COSME VS. MAGDI KHALIL, ET AL. (L-3065-19, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0369-21 Appellate June 8, 2023
- ROBERT J. TRIFFIN VS. THOMAS G. HUFFMAN, ET AL. (DC-004326-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1201-21 Appellate June 8, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOVAN PHILLIPS (18-08-2719, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2615-20 Appellate Oct. 6, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CALVIN L. GREEN (18-06-0562, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3443-20 Appellate Oct. 6, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ-OCASIO (18-12-1223, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3481-20 Appellate Oct. 6, 2023
- IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATES OF RITA O'MALLEY, ETC. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-0237-21 Appellate Oct. 6, 2023
- ELISABETH SCHWARTZ VS. FAHIM K. ABEDRABBO, ET AL. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION) A-2006-21 Appellate Oct. 6, 2023
- JOSEPH PULEO, ET AL. VS. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF BELMAR, ET AL. (L-3682-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2275-21 Appellate Oct. 6, 2023