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

Search

  • 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
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LOUIS WATLEY (98-01-0099, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1380-21 Appellate Aug. 10, 2023
  • K.J.U. VS. R.M.S. (FD-15-0490-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2757-21 Appellate Aug. 10, 2023
  • DCPP VS. T.R.-R. ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF X.I.C. (FG-07-0102-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0716-22 Appellate Aug. 10, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. A.F. (18-05-0735, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0799-22 Appellate Aug. 10, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAANDRE J. WADE, ET AL. (22-11-1041, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2377-22/A-2378-22 Appellate Aug. 10, 2023 Summary A-2377-22/A-2378-22 In May 2019, defendants were found in possession of two loaded handguns while driving a car on public roads.  Neither defendant had a permit to carry a handgun.  Both defendants were indicted for second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1).  Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen , 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), defendants moved to dismiss those criminal charges, arguing that the version of the gun-carry permit statute in effect at the time of their arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 (2018), was facially unconstitutional under Bruen .  The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges.  This court granted the State leave to appeal the order. The court holds that defendants did not have standing to challenge the gun permit statutes because neither defendant had applied for a handgun-carry permit. Nevertheless, the court addresses the merits of the constitutional challenge and holds that the justifiable need requirement in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c) (2018) was severable and the remaining provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 (2018), as well as N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1), were constitutional and enforceable.  Accordingly, the court reverses the order dismissing the charges and remands with direction that the trial court reinstate both counts of unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT C. GRILLO (16-01-0278, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0922-20 Appellate Aug. 11, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TYRELL JACKSON (10-04-0439, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1652-20 Appellate Aug. 11, 2023
  • C.M.D.1, ET AL. VS. BRIDGEWAY REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., ET AL. (L-1526-19, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2970-20 Appellate Aug. 11, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARIQ C. ERNEST (19-03-0588, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3112-20 Appellate Aug. 11, 2023
  • LAURENCE J. RAPPAPORT, ET AL. VS. KENNETH PASTERNAK, ET AL. (C-000077-19 and C-000255-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0491-21/A-0492-21 Appellate Aug. 11, 2023
  • ALYSSA MOLCHO, ET AL. VS. TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN (L-3358-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2264-21 Appellate Aug. 11, 2023
  • Carol Ann Conforti v. County of Ocean 086206) (Ocean County & Statewide) A-1-22 Supreme Aug. 10, 2023 Oral Argument A-1-22 A-1-22 Audio for A-1-22 Close Summary A-1-22 The definition of “medical facility” under N.J.S.A. 59:6-1 does not restrict the substantive immunities granted in N.J.S.A. 59:6-4, -5, or -6, which are also not “superseded in the jail suicide context.” However, there was evidence presented in this case, both at the summary judgment stage and at trial, that falls outside of any immunities granted by N.J.S.A. 59:6-4, -5, and -6. The jury could reasonably have concluded from that evidence that the County defendants were negligent. The trial court was therefore correct to refuse to dismiss plaintiff’s negligence count at the summary judgment stage and to refuse to overturn the jury’s verdict after trial. The Court accordingly affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division, as modified. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. A.M.S. (19-06-0343, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-4098-19 Appellate Aug. 14, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN B. RIVERA (19-03-0655, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3223-20 Appellate Aug. 14, 2023