- ALFRED PETROSSIAN VS. BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD, ET AL. (C-000172-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1333-23 Appellate July 9, 2025
- AKOS SULE VS. CODIROLI FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LP (C-000118-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1949-23 Appellate July 9, 2025
- D.D.H. VS. R.K. (FV-20-0732-24, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2144-23 Appellate July 9, 2025
- AVA SATZ VS. ALLEN SATZ (FM-02-2630-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2205-23 Appellate July 9, 2025
- NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ETC. VS. CHARLES SIMSEK (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) A-2372-23 Appellate July 9, 2025
- MICHAEL P. ONDIK, M.D. VS. PRINCETON EYE & EAR, LLC (C-000079-23, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2654-23 Appellate July 9, 2025
- NORTHGATE 1 APARTMENTS VS. BEATRIZ IZQUIERDO, ETC. (DC-008192-24, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3666-23 Appellate July 9, 2025
- Alfieri v. Frank MRS-L-1947-22 Trial July 7, 2025
- Gerald Fazio Jr. v. Altice USA (089744) (Bergen County and Statewide) A-21-24 Supreme July 9, 2025 Oral Argument A-21-24 A-21-24 Audio for A-21-24 Close Summary A-21-24 Under N.J.R.E. 406, evidence of a specific, repeated, and regular business habit or practice, whether corroborated or not, would have been admissible to establish a rebuttable presumption that Altice had acted in conformity with that habit or practice. But here, Altice produced insufficient evidence of such habit or practice. And because there is no proof that Altice emailed plaintiff the critical customer service agreement, the Court does not reach whether there exists mutual assent to waive a jury trial and arbitrate the dispute. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMAR HOLMES (11-08-1515, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2225-22 Appellate July 10, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARLON D. PEEK (14-06-0417, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3594-22 Appellate July 10, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN FARKAS (95-05-0907, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3972-22 Appellate July 10, 2025
- MICHAEL P. RYAN, ET AL. VS. HAMMONTON TOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-2208-19, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0662-23 Appellate July 10, 2025
- STEVEN SHAW, ET AL. VS. TK MANAGEMENT LLC, ET AL. (L-0757-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1338-23 Appellate July 10, 2025
- MOSHE SUGAR VS. ZHI SHAN WANG, ET AL. (C-000089-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4068-23 Appellate July 10, 2025
- CHARLES L. MAYES, II VS. SIGN DRIVE, LLC, ET AL. (L-2837-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1167-24 Appellate July 10, 2025
- P.H. VS. J.H., ET AL. (FV-18-0641-23 AND FV-18-0563-23, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2273-22/A-0145-23 Appellate July 10, 2025
- Michael Giammarino and Roseann Giammarino v. Dir., Div. of Taxation 001040-2024 Tax July 9, 2025
- State v. Paul J. Ritter and Robert F. Ruddy MA25-009 and 010 Monmouth County Trial July 8, 2025
- Donald Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township (089641) (Ocean County and Statewide) A-40-24 Supreme July 10, 2025 Oral Argument A-40-24 A-40-24 Audio for A-40-24 Close Summary A-40-24 The Court views N.J.S.A. 40A:7-12 to require a planning board to independently evaluate the merits of a deannexation petition and make an objective recommendation to the municipality’s governing body. That did not occur in this case. Plaintiffs met their burden of proof with respect to all three prongs of N.J.S.A. 40A:7-12.1, and the trial court properly ordered deannexation. Close