Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • JOANNE MCKOY VS. JARRETT E. REESE, ET AL. (L-4267-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3711-23 Appellate Dec. 4, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NOHMAAN R. MALIK (16-08-1519, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3832-23 Appellate Dec. 4, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TERENCE F. NELSON (21-07-1343 AND 21-07-1344, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0535-24 Appellate Dec. 4, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PHILLIP D. BRYANT AND JAMES HUNTER (22-02-0124, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1399-24 Appellate Dec. 4, 2025 Summary A-1399-24          On this appeal, the court addresses an issue of first impression in New Jersey and holds governmental requests for all data from cell towers, referred to as "tower dump" searches, require a warrant and the warrant must be particularized and supported by probable cause.  The court also holds that at the appropriate time the State must delete, and cannot retain, information it obtains concerning third-party users who were not involved in the crimes being investigated.          Applying these holdings to the warrants being challenged on this appeal, the court holds that four communication data warrants, which compelled four cellular service providers to turn over large amounts of subscriber information from cell towers near a crime scene, and which resulted in the disclosure of information from over ten thousand cellular device users who were not involved in the crimes, were unconstitutional under both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.          The court also holds, however, that the information identifying defendants would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means.  Consequently, the court affirms, on alternative grounds, the order denying defendants' motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrants as they relate to defendants. Close
  • A-1-25 State v. Paul J. Caneiro (091055)(Monmouth County and Statewide) A-1-25 Supreme Dec. 4, 2025 Oral Argument A-1-25 A-1-25 Audio for A-1-25 Close Summary A-1-25 Under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the police acted in an objectively reasonable manner to meet an exigency that did not permit time to secure a warrant. No bright-line rule governs the question of exigency, and determining whether the exigency exception to the warrant requirement applies requires courts to conduct an objective, fact-sensitive analysis. Drawing de novo legal conclusions from the facts found by the trial judge, the Court finds that here, time was of the essence, delay was not reasonable, and seizure of the DVR by the police without a warrant was justified by exigent circumstances. Close
  • IRA WEISSMAN VS. SEAN LI, M.D., ET AL. (L-4708-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (REDACTED) A-2213-23 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025 Summary A-2213-23          In this medical malpractice case arising out of a spinal surgery, the motion judge excluded the opinions of plaintiff's liability expert, a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist, on issues of medical causation.  The judge barred the expert from opining on causation issues for two reasons.          First, at his discovery deposition, the expert agreed with defense counsel's question that he would "defer to a neurologist" on whether the surgery caused plaintiff to experience symptoms of pain in his leg and foot.  The judge treated that deposition answer as a concession by the expert that he is unqualified to opine on the causation issues in this case.          Second, aside from the expert's supposed concession that he lacked suitable credentials, the judge barred his testimony about causation because his expert report conveyed inadmissible net opinions on the subject.          Having excluded the anesthesiologist on these grounds, the judge denied plaintiff's request to extend discovery and enable him to present a neurologist as a substitute causation expert.  The judge therefore granted defendant summary judgment.  Plaintiff now appeals.          Upon considering the divergent outcomes in cases from other jurisdictions, the court rules on the evidentiary issue as a matter of first impression under New Jersey law.           The court declines to adopt a per se rule that would treat a testifying expert's acknowledgment to "defer" to another expert who has a different or overlapping specialty as a categorical admission that the testifying expert lacks the qualifications to render opinions about the subject.  Instead, the context of the "deferral" must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.           Here, the record is unclear about what the expert meant by his adoption of the term "defer" when opposing counsel questioned him at his deposition.  Hence, this court declines to rely on that basis to bar the expert’s causation opinions.          Regardless of the "deferral" issue, the motion judge reasonably found that plaintiff's expert's conclusions about causation did not comport with the net opinion doctrine.  The court therefore sustains the motion judge on that basis alone and affirms summary judgment. Close
  • IRA WEISSMAN VS. SEAN LI, M.D., ET AL. (L-4708-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2213-23 – IRA WEISSMAN VS. SEAN LI, M.D., ET AL. (L-4708-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (REDACTED) [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication.] A-2213-23 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DYLAN J. PARKER (19-06-0508, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2872-23 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • DCPP VS. L.A. AND H.G., IN THE MATTER OF J.G. AND Z.G. (FN-16-0054-16, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3593-23 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORMEN'S ASSOC. VS. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (L-4241-23, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0106-24 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • YIREIKA DE LA ROSA VS. LA GYPSY (L-1402-22, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0720-24 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • DIANE YANNI VS. PROPERTY PEOPLE 365, LLC, ET AL. (C-000006-23, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0936-24 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL L. METCALFE (MA-24-019, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0982-24 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • HAYLIE SENAPE VS. SOUTH AMBOY HIGH MIDDLE SCHOOL, ET AL. (L-6378-24, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1329-24 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RHADISHA S. MAURRASSE (22-11-1086, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2140-24 Appellate Dec. 5, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KANEM WILLIAMSON (15-08-1937, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1376-23 Appellate Dec. 8, 2025
  • REIMAGINED MIND COUNSELING AND CONSULTATION, LLC VS. JERSEY CIY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. (L-1415-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2199-23 Appellate Dec. 8, 2025
  • FAIRKINGS PARTNERS, LLC, ETC. VS. ESSENCE L. DANIELS (LT-001879-24, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2972-23 Appellate Dec. 8, 2025 Summary A-2972-23      Effective March 1, 2020, the Legislature amended the Fair Eviction Notice Act (the Notice Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.15 to -10.17, to allow tenants who are about to be evicted for non-payment of rent, "to submit a rent payment," and thereby avoid eviction.  See N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.16a (the "Stack Amendment"). [1]   In this appeal, the issue presented is whether the rent payment must be in the amount set forth in the judgment of possession (JOP) or the amount of rent due at the time the tenant makes the payment.  The court interprets the Stack Amendment to allow the tenant to pay the amount set forth in the JOP, because the JOP is the judicial determination that allows a landlord to evict a tenant under the Anti-Eviction Act (the A-E Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 to -61.12.       Plaintiff Fairkings Partners, LLC, a landlord, appeals from a May 9, 2024 order, which held that defendant Essence Daniels, a tenant, was required to pay the amount of unpaid rent set forth in the JOP to avoid eviction.  Because the court agrees with the trial court's interpretation of the Stack Amendment, we affirm. [1]   The amendment is known as the Stack Amendment because Senator Brian P. Stack was the primary sponsor of the legislation.  The Stack Amendment has two sections:  section one is set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.16a; and section two is set forth in N.J.S.A. 46:8-49.3.  Section two directs landlords to accept a rent payment made in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.16a.     Close
  • LARRY FLEMING VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. (L-1947-23, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4008-23 Appellate Dec. 8, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. REGINALD W. ROACH (01-01-0150, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0120-24 Appellate Dec. 8, 2025