- HENRY GORDON VS. MATTHEW MANNISTO (DC-000160-24, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2726-23 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026
- JERMAINE DE PINA VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) A-3285-23 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026
- DARLENE EPPS VS. DGMB CASINO, LLC, ET AL. (L-3039-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0406-24 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GREGORY BYRD (87-10-2132, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0635-24 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026
- PANAT TARANAT VS. ROKT US CORP., ET AL. (L-4635-24, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2824-24 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAVANTE J. DORISME (24-12-1259, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3573-24 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026
- K.M.C. VS. W.E.P. (FV-21-0348-24, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0448-24 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026
- ALBERT H. WUNSCH, III VS. CTE REPUBLICANS FOR ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, ET AL. (L-5605-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-3223-23/A-3239-23 Appellate Jan. 8, 2026 Summary A-3223-23/A-3239-23 Plaintiff, a former special counsel to the Borough of Englewood Cliffs, brought an action for defamation against defendants based on documents distributed to Borough residents in advance of the then upcoming election. Defendants filed applications for an order to show cause, seeking dismissal of the case and counsel fees pursuant to the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61. After converting the applications to motions, the trial court denied defendants' motions, finding plaintiff sufficiently had pleaded the elements of a defamation claim to survive defendants' motions and that whether plaintiff would be able to prove those elements required further discovery. On appeal, defendants argued the trial court erroneously had relied on only the motion-to-dismiss standard of Rule 4:6-2(e) and erred by denying defendants' motions and permitting discovery. The court affirmed the order. The court held the trial court had properly applied the motion-to-dismiss standard pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-55(a)(3)(b)(i) of UPEPA and the summary-judgment standard pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-55(a)(3)(a) and -55(a)(3)(b)(ii) of UPEPA. The court also held the trial court had not erred in permitting discovery pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-52(d) of UPEPA. Close
- Rancor Properties, LLC v City of Ocean City 009288-2025 Tax Jan. 8, 2026
- NICHOLAS CILENTO VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE, ETC. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-2151-22 Appellate Jan. 9, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. COREY J. OTTE (23-06-0780, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2183-23 Appellate Jan. 9, 2026
- PINE RIDGE REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. A.O., ET AL. (LT-000523-24, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1678-24 Appellate Feb. 4, 2026 Summary A-1678-24 Respondent landlord initiated a summary action for nonpayment of rent against appellant and her husband. Appellant vacated the apartment due to allegations of domestic violence, while her husband remained on the premises. A default judgment for possession was entered against the husband alone, after which a warrant of removal was executed. Subsequently, appellant paid the outstanding rent, and with respondent, executed a consent to surrender the property. She later moved to vacate the judgment for possession entered against her husband and to seal the court record. Appellant now appeals from the trial court's order denying her motion to vacate the judgment of possession entered against the husband and seal the court record. The court addresses two novel legal questions: whether a consent order to surrender property to a landlord constitutes a judgment for possession in landlord-tenant cases under our governing law; and whether such a consent order remains a public record for seven years. The court concluded a consent order to surrender property to a landlord, based on its substantive nature and underlying purpose, is fundamentally different from a judgment for possession. Specifically, it reflects a voluntary agreement rather than an adjudication of the landlord's right to possession. The court held a consent order is subject to the sealing provision of Rule 1:38-3(f)(11) and is shielded from public view. Close
- ARORA PETROLEUM 2, LLC VS. AVIN PETROLEUM LLC, ET AL. (L-1040-22, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1706-24 Appellate Feb. 4, 2026
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARIANNE CANOVA, DECEASED (P-228049-23, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1696-23 Appellate Feb. 5, 2026
- THOMAS TESAR, ET AL. VS. SAYREVILLE BOROUGH (POLICE DEPARTMENT), ET AL. (L-4277-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2852-23 Appellate Feb. 5, 2026
- JACQUELINE C. LAHM VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) A-3364-23 Appellate Feb. 5, 2026
- OLIVER V. SHORT VS. STEVEN M. RESNICK (L-0891-24, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3502-23 Appellate Feb. 5, 2026
- FAITH HAINES VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-0035-24 Appellate Feb. 5, 2026
- PAULLEE DIOGENE VS. ANNMARIE JOHNSON-SMALL (DC-003994-25, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3574-24 Appellate Feb. 5, 2026
- FRANK SALADO, ET AL. VS. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, ET AL. (L-0003-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2690-23 Appellate Feb. 6, 2026