- MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, ETC. VS. OWUSU A. KIZITO, ET AL. (C-000095-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0739-22 Appellate May 7, 2025 Summary A-0739-22 Plaintiff Bureau of Securities appeals from an order of judgment entered by the trial court after a proof hearing. The Bureau filed a multi-count complaint alleging defendants violated the Uniform Securities Law, N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 to -89. Plaintiff sought various avenues of relief including: an injunction against defendant Kizito and his affiliated businesses from further violations of the Uniform Securities Law; restitution to investors; and disgorgement of profits. Plaintiff also sought statutory monetary penalties. After an eight-day hearing, the trial court made findings and entered judgment, accompanied by an order and written statement of reasons. The trial court found Kizito and one of his affiliated businesses jointly and severally liable for violating the Uniform Securities Law. The trial court ordered restitution and imposed a statutory monetary penalty. Interpreting N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2), the trial court expressly declined to impose the remedy of disgorgement. The trial court determined instead that subsection (a)(2) should be interpreted to permit the remedy of restitution or disgorgement, but not both remedies on the same facts. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2) authorized both remedies in the same enforcement action. Applying well-settled principles of statutory interpretation to the Uniform Securities Law, the court held: the statutory remedy of disgorgement may be applied by a trial court in tandem with the statutory remedy of restitution under N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2). Close
- Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Thomas J. Trautner (089406) (Bergen County and Statewide) A-19-24 Supreme May 7, 2025 Oral Argument A-19-24 A-19-24 Audio for A-19-24 Close Summary A-19-24 Municipalities and municipal corporations, as defined by N.J.S.A. 1:1-2, that engage in frivolous litigation are subject to sanctions under the FLS. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized “that municipalities, unlike States, do not enjoy a constitutionally protected immunity from suit,” Jinks v. Richland County , 538 U.S. 456, 466 (2003), and neither the FLS nor any other substantive law in New Jersey has immunized municipalities from FLS liability for filing frivolous pleadings like the Borough was found to have filed here. Close
- IN RE APPLICATION OF BARBARA EAMES, ETC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY) A-1411-22 Appellate May 8, 2025 Summary A-1411-22 Petitioners submitted an application within this court's original jurisdiction, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 1:7-4, seeking to void the Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act, L. 2021, c. 375. In their application, petitioners asserted the Legislature had followed a constitutionally- and statutorily-deficient procedure in passing the Act. Petitioners also claimed the Act was unconstitutional in other substantive ways. They asked this court to invalidate the Act based on the alleged procedural deficiencies. The court found petitioners had failed to show a constitutional infirmity in the procedure the Legislature followed in passing the Act and had failed to demonstrate this court has the authority to declare the Act invalid based solely on alleged statutory violations. Therefore, the court denied the aspect of petitioners' application based on an allegedly constitutionally-deficient procedure and remanded the rest of the application to the Law Division. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FERDINAND C. AUGELLO (18-04-0517, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3384-22 Appellate May 8, 2025
- DEVON COLLINS, ET AL. VS. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, ET AL. (L-0134-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1882-23 Appellate May 8, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RISHI R. MUKHERJEE (23-08-0710, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2450-23 Appellate May 8, 2025
- Cheshun v. Sikand MON-C-66-23 Trial May 7, 2025
- DCPP VS. M.Q., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF K.L., ET AL. (FN-07-0131-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0147-23 Appellate May 9, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GARY D. RHYMES (22-04-0796, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1726-23 Appellate May 9, 2025
- APPLIED LANDSCAPE TECHNOLOGIES VS. COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND TOMCO CONSTRUCTION (L-7337-24, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2030-24 Appellate May 9, 2025
- ANCHOR LAW FIRM, PLLC, ET AL. VS. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1186-21, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0052-23 Appellate May 9, 2025 Summary A-0052-23 In this litigation, a law firm and its partner challenge the constitutionality of the so-called "limited attorney exemption" of the Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act ("DACCA"), N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 to -9. The present case was initiated when the Office of Attorney Ethics ("OAE") launched an investigation of plaintiffs who, among other things, represent debtors in bankruptcy and collections cases. Such debt adjustment work may violate DACCA, which prohibits debt adjusters from operating for-profit in New Jersey unless exempted by the statute. DACCA initially exempted "any attorney-at-law of this State." In 1986, however, the Legislature amended DACCA to narrow the exception to the current "limited attorney exemption," which exempts only those attorneys who are "not principally engaged as debt adjuster[s]." N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1(c) (emphasis added). While rarely prosecuted, attorneys "principally engaged" in debt adjustment work may be subject to heavy civil and criminal sanctions under DACCA and the Criminal Code. This court invalidates the limited attorney exemption within DACCA because it (1) violates principles of separation of powers, and (2) is void for vagueness. First, this court holds that DACCA's limited attorney exemption is an unconstitutional violation of separation-of-powers principles. As applied to attorneys who principally conduct their legal practice for clients seeking an adjustment of their debts, N.J.S.A.17:16G-1(c)(2)(a) represents an undue encroachment upon the Court's exclusive authority to regulate attorneys set forth in Article VI, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution. Second, this court further holds that the limited attorney exemption is unconstitutional for its vagueness. The ambiguity of the limited attorney exemption denies attorneys due process because of the statute's failure to provide them with fair notice of what constitutes "principal engagement." This court therefore reverses the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants and remands the matter for further consideration of plaintiffs' civil rights and other claims. In doing so, this court invalidates the limited attorney exemption in N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1(c)(2)(a) and its cross-reference to N.J.S.A. 2C:21-19(f). The rest of the statute remains intact. Close
- James Patyrak and N.Y. Thymes & Deli, Inc., v. Director, Division of Taxation 013546-2016 Tax May 8, 2025
- The Arc/Mercer, Inc. v Director, Division of Taxation 07970-2024 Tax May 9, 2025
- DAVID CINCOTTA VS. BOROUGH OF LONGPORT (L-3111-21, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1390-23 Appellate May 12, 2025
- DCPP VS. T.T., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF MI.L.F., ET AL. (FG-01-0031-22, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2506-23/A-2507-23 Appellate May 12, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AKEEM M. BARPTELUS (21-10-0646, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2794-23 Appellate May 12, 2025
- JEANINE ANTHONY VS. COUNTY OF MORRIS, ET AL. (L-0462-21, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2623-23 Appellate May 12, 2025
- IN THE MATTER OF DENIAL OF THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST OF P.T. JIBSAIL, ETC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) A-2570-22 Appellate May 13, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RHUDELL C. CRUZ-SNELLING (16-11-1420, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0582-23 Appellate May 13, 2025
- M.Y. VS. S.K. (FV-20-1161-24, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1751-23 Appellate May 13, 2025