- T.B. VS. I.W. (FV-04-3713-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3899-22 Appellate Aug. 5, 2024 Summary A-3899-22 Defendant appealed from a final restraining order (FRO) entered against him pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, based upon predicate acts of sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2, lewdness, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-4, and harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. He contended the trial court failed to make factual or credibility findings, and abused its discretion in entering an FRO after drawing an adverse inference when he chose not to testify. The court concluded the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, vacated the FRO, reinstated the amended temporary restraining order (TRO), and remanded for a new FRO hearing before a different judge. Additionally, the court concluded, as a matter of law, it is not appropriate for a trial court to draw an adverse inference solely from defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to not testify in an FRO hearing. Despite the remedial nature of the PDVA, and the statute's language insulating a defendant's testimony from use in a criminal proceeding relating to the same act, a defendant's election to not testify cannot give rise to an adverse inference in an FRO hearing. Close
- Madeline Keyworth v. CareOne at Madison Avenue; Suzanne Bender v. Harmony Village at CareOne Paramus (088410) (Morris County, Bergen County, and Statewide) A-17/18-23 Supreme Aug. 5, 2024 Oral Argument A-17/18-23 A-17/18-23 Audio for A-17/18-23 Close Summary A-17/18-23 The only precondition to applying “the PSA’s privilege is whether the hospital performed its self-critical analysis in procedural compliance with N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.25(b) and its implementing regulations.” Brugaletta v. Garcia , 234 N.J. 225, 247 (2018). One of those regulations requires that a facility’s patient safety committee operate independently from any other committee within the facility. See N.J.A.C. 8:43E-10.4(c)(4). The facilities in these consolidated appeals did not comply with that procedural requirement, and the disputed documents are therefore not privileged. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN L. CURTIN (18-10-1393, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2581-21 Appellate Aug. 6, 2024
- DIAMOND ELITE MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, LLC VS. PAX TECHNOLOGIES (SC-000227-21, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3906-21 Appellate Aug. 6, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF R.N.'S APPLICATION FOR A FIREARMS PURCHASER IDENTIFICATION CARD, ETC. (PAS-0022-45, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-4015-21 Appellate Aug. 6, 2024
- NEETI WADHWA VS. AMIT SETHI (FM-12-1299-11, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0010-22 Appellate Aug. 6, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MERRILL C. SPENCER (17-05-0691, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0993-22 Appellate Aug. 6, 2024
- 103 Park Assoc LLC c/o River Co v. Montclair Township 008196-2021; 006183-2023 Tax Aug. 2, 2024
- In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (CS327) (088744) A-24-23 Supreme Aug. 6, 2024 Oral Argument A-24-23 A-24-23 Audio for A-24-23 Close Summary A-24-23 Based on the plain language deliberately crafted by the Legislature, read in context with the law as a whole, “routine” modifies only “maintenance and operations” and does not modify the remaining activities. Close
- SAM MIKHAIL, ET AL. VS. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY (L-1992-19, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1137-22 Appellate Aug. 7, 2024
- HARRISON JC, LLC VS. HARRISON BRIDGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ET AL. (L-0521-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1748-22 Appellate Aug. 7, 2024
- R.Y. VS. H.I. (FM-07-1015-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2135-22 Appellate Aug. 7, 2024
- CHRISTINE OSHIDAR VS. DARIUS OSHIDAR (FM-03-1029-12, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2553-22 Appellate Aug. 7, 2024
- GeBBS Healthcare Sols., Inc. v. American Healthcare Systems Corp. CAM-L-878-24 Trial Aug. 5, 2024
- Board of Education of the Township of Sparta v. M.N. (088378)(Statewide) A-16-23 Supreme Aug. 7, 2024 Oral Argument A-16-23 A-16-23 Audio for A-16-23 Close Summary A-16-23 A New Jersey State-issued diploma awarded based on passing the GED is not a “regular high school diploma” under 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv). Therefore, a student who receives such a State-issued diploma remains entitled to receive a free appropriate public education under the IDEA. Close
- G.G. VS. J.G. (FM-13-0223-01, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2674-21 Appellate Aug. 8, 2024
- S.R.K. VS. F.B. (FD-20-0766-23, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3284-22 Appellate Aug. 8, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF M.G. (FJ-20-0307-23, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3394-22 Appellate Aug. 8, 2024
- NOHEMY VARGAS VS. DELIA OROSCO, ET AL. (L-1276-22, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3748-22 Appellate Aug. 8, 2024
- MARK E. SOLOMON, D.P.M. VS. MEDICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF MORRISTOWN MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL. (C-000076-22, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0436-23 Appellate Aug. 8, 2024