- NC COMMUNITY CENTER ASSOCIATES VS. BMAAWAD ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL. (L-2825-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1938-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- ROXANA GAVIRIA VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH (L-2426-22, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2479-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- DISCOVER BANK VS. SADIA TAHIR (DC-010515-20, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3068-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC ASSIGNEE OF WEBBANK VS. MORDECHAI GROSS (L-2591-22, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3561-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- MARK CERKEZ, ET AL. VS. GLOUCESTER CITY, NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1516-23 AND L-0733-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0661-23/A-0745-23 Appellate July 19, 2024 Summary A-0661-23/A-0745-23 The central issue in these back-to-back appeals, which have been consolidated for the purpose of issuing a single opinion, is whether municipalities have an implied contractual (seller-consumer) relationship with residents to whom they distribute metered potable water. The answer to that question determines whether plaintiffs may sue defendants under a breach-of-contract theory on the grounds that the water supplied to them contains a high level of contaminants. Plaintiffs rely on older cases holding there was a contractual relationship between residents and their towns with respect to water service. Defendants rely on more recent cases recognizing a different type of relationship between municipal water distributors and residents—one that is not based on principles of contract law. The court concludes that under the current governance framework for public water systems, potable water is a public resource owned by the people and held in trust for them. Under that paradigm, defendant municipalities distribute water to their residents for a governmental purpose. They are not tantamount to private companies that sell water for profit. The fact they charge residents for the costs incurred for providing this governmental service —which varies based on the amount of water a resident receives—does not automatically create a contractual relationship. The court also concludes that for all practical purposes, the theory of liability in plaintiffs' complaints, while carefully drafted to employ the terminology of contract law, is indistinguishable from a warranty of fitness cause of action explicitly precluded under a provision of the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(b). Stated another way, using the label of a contract dispute to describe the cause of action does not change its essential character or transform the relationship between municipal water distributors and residents into a contractual one. The court thus concludes there is no foundation upon which contractual damages may be claimed against defendant municipalities. Close
- MARNA LYNN VS. MARK MEDING (FM-02-0527-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0075-22 Appellate July 22, 2024
- JEFFREY SLOSKY VS. VALERIE SLOSKY (FM-15-1744-12, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2032-22 Appellate July 22, 2024
- DOMENICA S. NARDONE, ETC. VS. JOHN W. AGER, III (L-6415-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2101-22 Appellate July 22, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEVIN POTTER (11-01-0026, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2838-22 Appellate July 22, 2024
- MSND FINANCIAL, LLC VS. 187 LOVELADIES HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL. (F-006797-20, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1744-23 Appellate July 22, 2024
- City of Jersey City v. 575 Pavonia, LLC 008090-2020 Tax July 19, 2024
- PIERRE LEON VS. TOOL & TRUCK RENTAL AT THE HOME DEPOT (L-3338-19, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3032-21 Appellate July 23, 2024
- MICHAEL JACKSON, ET AL. VS. 319 PENN DEVELOPMENT, LLC., ET AL (L-1003-22, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1351-22 Appellate July 23, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BRENNAN DOYLE (14-11-1995, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1733-22 Appellate July 23, 2024
- K.F. VS. W.F. (FM-03-0683-17, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3410-22 Appellate July 23, 2024
- MODSL, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION (NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION) A-0127-23 Appellate July 23, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUSTIN MORGAN (22-05-1241, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0499-23 Appellate July 23, 2024 Summary A-0499-23 This appeal presents a question of first impression regarding when the State may be compelled to provide field and health reports of narcotics detection canines in accordance with the Supreme Court's holding in Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013). Defendant was indicted with second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, fourth-degree possession of hollow nose bullets, third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and second-degree certain persons not to have a weapon. The Law Division denied defendant's motion to compel the State to provide discovery of records related to a narcotics detection canine used to conduct a sniff of the vehicle and whose positive alert gave the basis for probable cause to conduct a full search. Upon granting leave to appeal, the court concludes that under Harris , the canine's field and health records are not per se irrelevant to reliability and probable cause determinations and therefore, the trial court should have first heard the State's motion challenging the expert before denying the defendant's motion for discovery. Because the records may be deemed relevant by the trial court, the court reverses and remands for consideration of the State's motion to bar defendant's expert using the Daubert [1] standard adopted by our Supreme Court for criminal cases in State v. Olenowski , 253 N.J. 133, 151 (2023). [1] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Close
- IAN SMITH, ET AL. VS. THE BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, ET AL. (L-3175-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1489-21 Appellate July 24, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. QUMERE MCCLENDON (07-09-0125, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3102-21 Appellate July 24, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LONNIE L. WILKERSON (21-08-2187, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0502-22 Appellate July 24, 2024