- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF R.S., DECEASED (277696, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3452-22 Appellate Oct. 31, 2024
- CASELLA FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. MAYOR AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HARRISON, ET AL. (L-1280-22, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3880-22 Appellate Oct. 31, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KAL E. ELHOREGY (22-03-0210, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1460-23 Appellate Oct. 31, 2024
- A.N. VS. D.K. (FV-12-0875-24, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1496-23 Appellate Oct. 31, 2024
- BASELINE ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. DAVID E. KONIGSBERG, M.D. (L-5660-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1940-23 Appellate Oct. 31, 2024
- PARKE BANK VS. VOORHEES DINER CORPORATION, ET AL. (L-0715- 20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (REDACTED) A-0850-23/A-0889-23 Appellate Oct. 31, 2024 Summary A-0850-23/A-0889-23 In these back-to-back appeals consolidated for the purpose of issuing a single opinion, the court addressed the statutory receiver requirements for discharge under the New Jersey Business Corporations Act (BCA), N.J.S.A. 14A:14-1 to -27, and New Jersey Court Rules 4:53-1 to -9. Appellants Mori Restaurant, LLC (Mori), and Lucille Lopez and Robert P. Lopez, Jr. (the Lopezes), appealed from a November 17, 2023 Law Division order denying reconsideration of an October 6, 2023 order, which discharged Alan I. Gould, Esq. as the court-appointed statutory receiver. Following the court's review of the record and applicable law, it concluded the Law Division improvidently granted Gould's discharge as the statutory receiver because he failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the BCA, including written notice to creditors within thirty days of appointment, and court rules, requiring an accounting and inventory. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. In the unpublished section of this opinion, the court addressed other discrete matters. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES CRAWFORD (19-02-0187, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0153-22 Appellate Nov. 1, 2024
- UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. MACHANE OF RICHMOND, LLC, ET AL. (L-1465-20, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1918-22 Appellate Nov. 1, 2024
- TIMOTHY BURKHARD VS. CITY OF PLAINFIELD, ET AL. (L-2356-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3173-22 Appellate Nov. 1, 2024
- JUDY MAE THORPE VS. LT. KENNETH S. KLEINMAN (RET.) CPM, ET AL. (L-3072-22, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3391-22 Appellate Nov. 1, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEVEN W. ITALIANO (21-08-0653, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4009-22 Appellate Nov. 1, 2024 Summary A-4009-22 The court was asked to consider whether a defendant, serving sequentially several consecutive periods of driver's license suspensions imposed for various convictions including driving while under the influence (DWI) offenses, can be charged with violating N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) for driving during the suspension period for a non-DWI-related offense while awaiting commencement of a court-imposed DWI license suspension. The court determined because the effective date of defendant's most recent DWI-related conviction was delayed only due to other consecutively imposed accumulated sentences, defendant violated N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) when he operated his vehicle prior to the conclusion of the suspension for his DWI offense. The court distinguished State v. Perry , 439 N.J. Super. 514 (App. Div. 2015). It noted the Perry court determined N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) "punishes those who drive while suspended for violations of the DWI . . . law . . . when they drive during the court-imposed period of suspension," and it was not intended to criminalize "driving during a period of administrative suspension" when driving privileges could have been restored but for the defendant's failure to complete the process for administrative restoration. Id. at 531-32. The court observed defendant was not driving during a period of administrative suspension after having completed his court-ordered suspension. Rather, he had not yet completed his suspension term for the most recent of his four DWIs. The court concluded it would be illogical for defendant to avoid a conviction for violating N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b), in light of defendant's four prior DWIs, merely because the suspension for his latest DWI had not yet commenced because he incurred multiple other intervening license suspensions. The court adopted the rationale of State v. Cuccurullo , 228 N.J. Super. 517, 520 (App. Div. 1998), holding in the context of applying the enhanced penalties under N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 for driving while suspended for DWI, that "[a] person is 'under suspension' from the time that the suspension is imposed even though the period of suspension may not begin until later." Ibid. Close
- SAVE BARNEGAT BAY, INC, ETC. VS. DONALD F. BURKE, SR, ET AL. (L-1171-22, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0056-23 Appellate Nov. 1, 2024
- Alfieri v. Frank MRS-L-1947-22 Trial May 15, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CRAIG E. GREENE (21-06-0537, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3696-21 Appellate May 17, 2024
- GRAND ESSEX LLC, ET AL. VS. RONALD MORRISON (DC-008963-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0071-22 Appellate May 17, 2024
- EDWARD BRUECK VS. WAWA, INC., ET AL. (L-0293-19, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0249-22 Appellate May 17, 2024
- KEITH THOMAS VS. TY HYDERALLY, ESQUIRE, ET AL. (L-6621-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0273-22 Appellate May 17, 2024
- WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ETC. VS. MARSHALL ANTHONY, ET AL. (F-009606-19, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0395-22 Appellate May 17, 2024
- NOBUYO SEKIGUCHI VS. HIDEAKI TOKUMITSU, ET AL. (L-4328-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0702-22 Appellate May 17, 2024
- 771 ALLISON COURT LLC VS. NICHOLAS SIRIANNI, ET AL. (L-0800-21, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1566-22 Appellate May 17, 2024