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

Search

  • EMPOWERNJ, ET AL. VS. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) A-1461-21 Appellate Aug. 7, 2023
  • DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY VS. G.F. (DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3570-21 Appellate Aug. 7, 2023
  • AVICON BROWN VS. OCEAN CASINO RESORT (SC-000245-22, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4011-21 Appellate Aug. 7, 2023
  • NDF1, LLC VS. EDWARD KITCHEN, ET AL. (F-005640-20, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3725-20 Appellate Aug. 8, 2023
  • JASPER FRAZIER VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-0811-21 Appellate Aug. 8, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KRISLA REZIREKSYON (12-06-1695, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2407-21 Appellate Aug. 8, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARIO BUITRAGO-SANCHEZ (20-02-0172, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2930-21 Appellate Aug. 8, 2023
  • K.E.Z. VS. J.H. (FV-05-0428-22, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3172-21 Appellate Aug. 8, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ASHRAF T. HANNA, ETC. (NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY) A-3210-21 Appellate Aug. 8, 2023
  • E.W. v. W.M-H. FV-07-2446-22 Trial Aug. 4, 2023 Summary FV-07-2446-22 The question presented to the trial court was whether the immunity statute relating to DCPP referrals found at N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.13 confers immunity to DCPP referrals made with the intent to harass a victim of domestic violence as defined under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. There was no prior precedent resolving this issue. In harmonizing the two statutes, the trial court found that it would be contrary to legislative intent to confer immunity in the realm of domestic violence as that would permit the weaponization of DCPP referrals as a means of perpetrating domestic violence. This matter arose out of an application for a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. At the conclusion of the trial, the only predicate act surviving was the act of calling DCPP to report allegations of abuse in order to harass the victim. The trial court noted that the Legislature intended to protect children as the primary purpose in enacting the immunity statute regarding DCPP referrals. Additionally, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18 expressly provides that children can suffer emotionally from the exposure to domestic violence, and that children may also be a victim of domestic violence. Thus, the trial court concluded that the application of the DCPP immunity statute to allegations of harassment under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Acts fails as a matter of law under the doctrine of absurdity. Even though the trial court found that the defendant committed the predicate act of harassment by making reports to DCPP, the trial court ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the second prong of Silver v. Silver , 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006), and denied the application for a final restraining order. Close
  • State v. Jason M. O’Donnell (087023) (Hudson County & Statewide) A-17-22 Supreme Aug. 7, 2023 Oral Argument A-17-22 A-17-22 Audio for A-17-22 Close Summary A-17-22 The bribery statute applies to any “person” who accepts an improper benefit -- incumbents, candidates who win, and candidates who lose. N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2. The statute also expressly states that it is no defense to a prosecution if a person “was not qualified to act.” Ibid . So even if a candidate is unable to follow through on a corrupt promise, the language of the bribery statute makes it a crime to accept cash payments for a promise of future performance. The bribery statute’s history, relevant caselaw, and commentary from the Model Penal Code, on which the statute is modeled, confirm that the law extends to candidates. Close
  • Amboy Bank v. Bathgate II MON-L-2810-15 Trial March 29, 2023
  • DCPP VS. A.G. AND T.S., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF T.S. (FG-20-0015-21, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0968-21/A-1227-21 Appellate Aug. 9, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSHUA T. NOLAN (21-02-0195, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2107-21 Appellate Aug. 9, 2023
  • JUSTIN ZIMMERMAN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, ETC. VS. GENEVIEVE STEWARD, ET AL. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE) A-2371-21 Appellate Aug. 9, 2023
  • BRANDON MEREDITH HARDY VS. SUSAN D. JACKSON (L-2250-21, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3155-21 Appellate Aug. 9, 2023 Summary A-3155-21          Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at a federal prison located in New Jersey, wants to marry someone who is incarcerated at a federal prison located in a different state.  He sued the New Hanover Township Municipal Clerk and Registrar, claiming she had violated his civil rights contrary to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, by applying the requirement in N.J.S.A. 37:1-7 and -8 that couples appear in person to obtain a marriage license.  He appeals an order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and granting defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.  He argues the enforcement of the in-person requirement was unconstitutional and contends the motion judge should have used his equitable powers to enjoin enforcement of the requirement.           The court rejects both arguments.  The court holds the statutes at issue do not create an unconstitutional bar of a prisoner's right to marry but instead apply to individuals who want to marry and are reasonably related to the legitimate goal of ensuring the validity of marriages.  The court also holds the motion judge could not have used his equitable powers to enjoin defendant's enforcement of the statutory in-person requirement.  Accordingly, the court affirms the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint and the denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TYSHON M. NIEVES (21-09-1334, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3379-21 Appellate Aug. 9, 2023 Summary A-3379-21 In this appeal from an order denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized following the 5:00 a.m. execution of a knock-and-announce search warrant at a residence, the court finds the law enforcement officers did not wait a reasonable period after knocking and announcing their presence before forcibly breaching and entering the home's front door.  The court determines that based on the circumstances presented, the officers' forcible entry into the home after waiting less than five seconds after after knocking and announcing their presence was unreasonable and rendered the subsequent search of the home and seizure of evidence unconstitutional.  The court determines the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the evidence, reverses the order denying the suppression motion, and remands for further proceedings. Close
  • EXECUTOR TONY PING YEW OF ESTATE OF JOHN Y. WEI VS. PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE, ET AL. (L-0876-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3627-21 Appellate Aug. 9, 2023
  • Suzanne Cardali v. Michael Cardali (087340) (Somerset County & Statewide) A-25-22 Supreme Aug. 8, 2023 Oral Argument A-25-22 A-25-22 Audio for A-25-22 Close Summary A-25-22 A movant need not present evidence on all of the cohabitation factors set forth in Konzelman v. Konzelman , 158 N.J. 185, 202 (1999) -- or in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n), for cases in which the PSA was executed after the statute’s enactment -- to make a prima facie showing. If the movant’s certification addresses some of the relevant factors and is supported by competent evidence, and if that evidence would warrant a finding of cohabitation if unrebutted, the trial court should find that the movant has presented prima facie evidence of cohabitation and should grant limited discovery tailored to the issues contested in the motion, subject to any protective order necessary to safeguard confidential information. Here, defendant presented prima facie evidence as to several of the Konzelman cohabitation factors, and that evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant a finding of cohabitation. Defendant was therefore entitled to limited discovery. Close
  • State v. Stephen A. Zadroga (087156) (Hudson County & Statewide) A-22-22 Supreme Aug. 9, 2023 Oral Argument A-22-22 A-22-22 Audio for A-22-22 Close Summary A-22-22 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity justified a mistrial here. As the Appellate Division held, the State can present the counts of aggravated manslaughter and death by auto to a new grand jury based solely on the reckless driving evidence, without any evidence on intoxication. Close