- Monmouth Vicinage Court User Resource Center, Contact us to ask questions, find legal resources, and get help with understanding court forms and procedures. We also have referral information about community services., Our court staff can give procedural guidance, but they cannot give legal advice., The Center is open Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm., Self-Help Resource Center, Ombudsman, Monmouth County Courthouse 71 Monument Street Suite/Room West Wing, 106, Floor Lower Level Freehold, New Jersey 07728 732-358-8700 ext. 87260 MonmouthHelp.mailbox@njcourts.gov Find out more about the Judiciary Ombudsman Program ombudsman program .
- Ocean Vicinage Court User Resource Center, Contact us to ask questions, find legal resources, and get help with understanding court forms and procedures. We also have referral information about community services., Our court staff can give procedural guidance, but they cannot give legal advice., The Center is open Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm., Legal Research and Information Center, Ombudsman, 118 Washington Street 118 Washington Street Suite/Room 101, Floor 1st Floor Toms River, New Jersey 08754 732-504-0700 ext. 64480 OceanHelp.Mailbox@njcourts.gov Find out more about the Judiciary Ombudsman Program ombudsman program .
- Passaic Vicinage Court User Resource Center, Contact us to ask questions, find legal resources, and get help with understanding court forms and procedures. We also have referral information about community services., Our court staff can give procedural guidance, but they cannot give legal advice., The Center is open Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm., Mandak-Womack Resource Center, Ombudsman, Superior Court of New Jersey - Passaic 71 Hamilton Street Suite/Room 130, Floor 1st Floor Paterson, New Jersey 07505 973-653-2910 ext. 24470 PassaicHelp.Mailbox@njcourts.gov Find out more about the Judiciary Ombudsman Program ombudsman program .
- Somerset/Hunterdon/Warren Vicinage Court User Resource Center, Contact us to ask questions, find legal resources, and get help with understanding court forms and procedures. We also have referral information about community services., Our court staff can give procedural guidance, but they cannot give legal advice., The Ombudsman Office is open Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Contact the ombudsman for appointments in Hunterdon and Warren counties., Court User Resource Center, Ombudsman, Somerset County Courthouse 20 North Bridge Street Floor 5th Floor Somerville, New Jersey 08876 908-332-7700 ext. 13240 SomHunWrnHelp.Mailbox@njcourts.gov Find out more about the Judiciary Ombudsman Program ombudsman program .
- Union Vicinage Court User Resource Center, Contact us to ask questions, find legal resources, and get help with understanding court forms and procedures. We also have referral information about community services., Our court staff can give procedural guidance, but they cannot give legal advice., The Center is open Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 3:30 pm., Self-Help Center, Ombudsman, Union County Courthouse 2 Broad Street Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207 908-787-1650 ext. 22300 UnionHelp.Mailbox@njcourts.gov Find out more about the Judiciary Ombudsman Program ombudsman program .
- Morris/Sussex Vicinage Court User Resource Centers, Contact us to ask questions, find legal resources, and get help with understanding court forms and procedures. We also have referral information about community services., Our court staff can give procedural guidance, but they cannot give legal advice., The Morris and Sussex Counties Court User Resource Centers are open in-person Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Both locations accept telephone, email and written correspondence Monday through Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. , Morris Court User Resource Center, Court User Resource Center, Morris County Administration and Records Building 10 Court Street Suite/Room AR105 Morristown, New Jersey 07963 862-397-5700 ext. 75160 MRS-SSXHelp.mailbox@njcourts.gov, Sussex County Judicial Center, Sussex County Judicial Center 43-47 High Street Floor Lower Level Newton, New Jersey 07860 MRS-SSXHelp.mailbox@njcourts.gov Find out more about the Judiciary Ombudsman Program ombudsman program.
- New Jersey Judiciary Privacy Statement, This statement is designed to assist you in understanding how we collect, use and safeguard information you provide to us and to assist you in making informed decisions when using the Judiciary's website. It will be continuously assessed against new technologies, business practices and the needs of our visitors. Body, Section A. Information Collected and How it is Used, Website Information Collected and Stored Automatically, If you do nothing during your visit but browse through the website, read pages, or download information, we will gather and store certain information about your visit automatically. This information does not identify you personally. We automatically collect and store only the following information about your visit: The Internet domain (for example, "xcompany.com" if you use a private Internet access account, or "yourschool.edu" if you connect from a university's domain) and IP address (an IP address is a number that is automatically assigned to your computer whenever you are browsing the Internet) from which you access our website; The type of browser and operating system used to access our site; The date and time you access our site; The pages you visit; and If you linked to the New Jersey Judiciary website from another website, the address of that website. We use this information to help us make our site more useful to visitors - to learn about the number of visitors to our site and the types of technology our visitors use. We do not track or record information about individuals and their visits. IP addresses are not linked to identifiable information., Personal Information, Personal information includes such things as an individual's name, address, and phone number. A domain name or Internet protocol address is not considered personal information. We collect no personal information about you unless you voluntarily provide it to us by sending us e-mail, participating in a survey, paying a traffic ticket online, or completing an online form. You may choose not to contact us by e-mail, participate in a survey, pay your traffic ticket online, or provide any personal information using an online form. Your choice not to participate in these activities will not impair your ability to browse the Judiciary's website and read or download any information posted on the site. If you choose to provide us with personal information -- by sending an e-mail, or by filling out a form with your personal information and submitting it to us through our website -- we use that information to respond to your message and to help us get you the information you have requested. We share the information you give us with another government agency only if your inquiry relates to that agency, or as otherwise required by law. Moreover, we do not create individual profiles with the information you provide or give it to any private organizations. The New Jersey Judiciary does not collect information for commercial marketing or sell any information provided by users through this website to third parties. The Judiciary does not plan to divulge personal information collected or information disclosed voluntarily, but may be required to do so pursuant to State or Federal law. If you believe that your personal information is being used for a purpose other than what was intended when submitted it, please contact the individual shown in the "Contact Information" section of this privacy policy., 3. Credit Card or Financial Information, If you choose to pay filing fees, registration fees, continuing learning, traffic ticket fines or any other judicially imposed financial obligation via an online Judiciary application, any personal information you submit will be used solely to update our court files to reflect that your payment has been made. Credit card/debit card information is stored securely and in a confidential manner, and will be used solely for administrative purposes (e.g. in the event that you wish to revise a particular credit/debit card transaction). The use of, and access to, your personal information is restricted to those employees who need to know that information to provide services or support to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect your personal information., E-mail Privacy warning, E-mail is not a secure medium. Personal information sent via the Internet can be intercepted. You may, therefore, wish to reconsider the advisability of sending messages that contain highly sensitive, personal information to this Internet address., Section B. Public Access to Information, All information posted on the Judiciary's website is public information that is subject to inspection and copying by members of the public., Section C. Cookies, We use cookies provided by our public relations partners to help us display information that might be relevant to you. This cookie is a piece of code that is stored in your browser., Section D. Security, The New Jersey Judiciary, as developer and manager of this website, has taken several steps to safeguard the integrity of its data and prevent unauthorized access to information maintained. These measures are designed and intended to prevent corruption of data, block unknown or unauthorized access to our systems and information, and to provide reasonable protection of private and personal information in our possession. When users submit sensitive information via the website, their information is protected both online and offline. When we ask users to enter personal information (such as credit card number), that information is encrypted and is protected with encryption software. While we use encryption to protect sensitive information online, we also protect user information offline., Section E. Disclaimer, The New Jersey Judiciary's website and materials may contain hypertext or links to other Internet sites that are not owned, operated, controlled or reviewed by the Judiciary. These links are provided solely as a courtesy and convenience to you, the visitor. When you link to one of these sites, you are no longer on the New Jersey Judiciary website and this privacy policy will not apply. When you link to another website, you are subject to the privacy policy of that website., Section F. Contact Information, To offer comments about the New Jersey Judiciary website:, Communications and Community Relations, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 037 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037 609-815-2910 webmaster.mbx@njcourts.gov
- Business Opinions, This page includes Superior Court, Appellate Division and Supreme Court opinions that are of special interest to the business community. Start End Issues - Any - Additional Insured Arbitration Attorney Fees Auto Breach of Contract Breach of Duty of Loyalty Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Warranty Business Judgment Rule Buyout Cancellation CEPA Civil Conspiracy Collateral Source Rule Commercial General Liability Commercial Litigation Computer/Software Related Issues Condominium Act Conflict of Interest Conflict/Choice of Law Construction Consumer Fraud Contract Interpretation Conversion Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Covenants (Restrictive, not to Compete/Solicit) Custodial/Statutory Receiver Damages Discovery Issues/Motions Dissolution Economic Loss Doctrine Employment Contract Employment Status Environmental Experts Fair Dealing Foreclosure Forum Issues Fraud Fraudulent Inducement Indemnification Insurance Jurisdictional Issues LAD Lemon Law Merger Negligent Misrepresentation Patents Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Piercing the Corporate Veil Private Employment Agency Act Products Liability Professional Negligence/Malpractice Promissory Estoppel Quantum Meruit Quasi-Contract Racketeering Racketeering Real Estate Real Estate Reformation Rescission Sealing of Court Records Securities Shareholder Issues Specific Performance Statute of Limitations Statute of Repose Statutory Interpretation Subpoenas Subrogation Successor Liability Suspicious Activity Report Privilege Tortious Interference Trade Secrets Trademark UCC Unfair Competition Unjust Enrichment Valuation Waiver WARN Act Witnesses Workers Compensation Wrongful Termination All Search Apply Filters CAM-L-2500-21 - D’elia v. Martinez, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, May 2, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Breach of Contract Fraud Conversion Unjust Enrichment Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Tortious Interference, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Polansky, P.J.Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, CAM-L-2500-21 MRS-L-1627-23 - Holder v. Mroue, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, April 1, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Breach of Contract Fraud, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, DeAngelis, P.J. Ch., Referenced Opinion ID, MRS-L-1627-23 SSX-L-469-24 - Franek v. Twp. of Wantage, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, March 28, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Discovery Issues/Motions, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, DeAngelis, P.J. Ch., Referenced Opinion ID, SSX-L-469-24 MRS-L-700-24 - First Environment Inc. v. Delta Environmental Services, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, March 25, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, CEPA Tortious Interference Unfair Competition, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, DeAngelis, P.J. Ch., Referenced Opinion ID, MRS-L-700-24 PAS-L-2441-22 - Wiggins Plastic, Inc. v. Cty. of Passaic, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Feb. 6, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Discovery Issues/Motions, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Del Sardo, P.J. Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, PAS-L-2441-22 CAM-L-2934-20 - Shah v. Shroff, et al., Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Jan. 21, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Discovery Issues/Motions, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Polansky, P.J. Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, CAM-L-2934-20 MON-L-002754-20 - Ranga Bhoomi, LLC v. Sequoia Training and Nutrition Consultants, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Jan. 13, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Breach of Contract Conversion Fraud Promissory Estoppel Unjust Enrichment, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Cagan, J.S.C., Referenced Opinion ID, MON-L-002754-20 PAS-L-000712-24 - Patterson Bd. of Ed. v. Dimartino, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Jan. 10, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Civil Conspiracy, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Del Sardo, P.J. Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, PAS-L-000712-24 ATL-L-1584-22 - Wiser Insurance Co. v. My1Agent, Inc., Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Jan. 8, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Conversion Tortious Interference, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Johnson, J.S.C., Referenced Opinion ID, ATL-L-1584-22 OCN-L-002491-17 - River Pointe v. Pulte Homes, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Jan. 6, 2025, Business Opinion Issue Types, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Wellerson, P.J. Cv, Referenced Opinion ID, OCN-L-002491-17 MID-L-3563-19 - Atlanta Int'l Ins. Co. v. Johnson and Johnson, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Dec. 18, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Insurance, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Wolinetz, J.S.C., Referenced Opinion ID, MID-L-3563-19 MRS-L-753-20 - Ho v. Morris Anesthesia Group, P.A., Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Nov. 22, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Shareholder Issues Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, De Angelis, P.J. Ch., Referenced Opinion ID, MRS-L-753-20 OCN-L-002491-17 - River Pointe v. Pulte Homes, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Nov. 21, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Wellerson, P.J. Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, OCN-L-002491-17 MRS-L-1909-17 - Fairfield Motors, Inc. v. Dipiano, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Oct. 25, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Experts, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, De Angelis, P.J. Ch., Referenced Opinion ID, MRS-L-1909-17 MON-L-1620-24 - Reuther v. TKF Prop. Mgt., Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Oct. 25, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Breach of Contract Civil Conspiracy Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fraud Negligent Misrepresentation Tortious Interference, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Cagan, J.S.C., Referenced Opinion ID, MON-L-1620-24 CAM-L-2500-21 - D’elia v. Martinez, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Sept. 27, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Arbitration, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Polansky, P.J. Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, CAM-L-2500-21 PAS-L-2685-21 - Dry Clean Express II, LLC v. River Boulder, LLC, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Sept. 25, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Breach of Contract, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Del Sardo, P.J. Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, PAS-L-2685-21 L-001136/11 - Sae Power v. Avaya, Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Sept. 19, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Trade Secrets Experts, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Referenced Opinion ID, L-001136/11 GLO-L-1212-15 - CURE v. Summit Pharmacy, Inc., Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Aug. 26, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Insurance, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Swift, J.S.C., Referenced Opinion ID, GLO-L-1212-15 CAM-L-878-24 - GeBBS Healthcare Sols., Inc. v. American Healthcare Systems Corp., Business Opinion Category, Complex Business Litigation Program, Decided Date, Aug. 2, 2024, Business Opinion Issue Types, Discovery Issues/Motions Breach of Contract Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Promissory Estoppel, Publication Status, Unpublished, Judge, Polansky, P.J.Cv., Referenced Opinion ID, CAM-L-878-24 Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 37 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 725 items
- Instructions for Participants in Remote Court Events, This page provides important instructions for participating in remote court events. Remote court is held either over the phone or via a video conferencing program. The court will provide phone users with dial-in instructions. The court will also provide the link for video conferences. Here are instructions and tips to help you prepare for your day in virtual courts. How to Join and Participate in a Zoom Virtual Courtroom How to Join and Participate in a Zoom Virtual Courtroom Judiciary Hardware & Software Requirements for Zoom Zoom - Technology Software Requirements How to view a sign language interpreter in Zoom How to view a Sign Language Interpreter in Zoom Procedure for Sign Language Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) in Zoom Procedure for Sign Language Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) in Zoom How to Join a Teams Meeting through the Teams Client How to Join a Teams Meeting Through the Teams Client, How to Prepare for and Participate in a Virtual Court Proceeding (Video), Solemnity of Court Proceedings (NJ Courts) Instructional video - English Instructional video - Spanish Instructional video -Spanish, Sign Language in Remote Video Court, If using Zoom, please refer to the Sign Language in Zoom resource listed above. These Tips for Court Interpreters tips for interpreters will help you deliver quality service for deaf or hard of hearing individuals. Download the Sign Language VRI Interpreter Checklist interpreter checklist to ensure you have every piece in place. , Technology Rooms Available, Some courthouses provide technology spaces all virtual court proceedings and court events. If a technology space is not available, Judiciary staff will assist you so that you can participate in your case either as scheduled or at a future time. Click on your respective county to view available technology spaces and get contact info to reserve a technology space. , Atlantic/Cape May, Ten technology spaces are available: Five in Atlantic City Civil Courthouse Three in Mays Landing Criminal Courts Complex Three in Cape May County Courthouse To reserve a technology space for a scheduled court event: 609-402-0100 ext. 47220 or Atl.CapeHelp.Mailbox@njcourts.gov To request a technology space for an emergent or unscheduled court matter: 609-402-0100 ext. 47043 or dominique.brooks@njcourts.gov For other assistance, including interpreting or an ADA accommodation: 609-402-0100 ext. 47043 or dominique.brooks@njcourts.gov Bergen Three technology spaces are available. To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: 201-221-0700 ext. 25102 For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 201-221-0700 Burlington Two dedicated (DV) and three multi-purpose technology spaces are available. To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: Civil - 609-288-9500 ext. 38091 Criminal - 609-288-9500 ext. 38081 Family - 609-288-9500 ext. 38831 If you are at the courthouse, please proceed to the kiosk immediately after the security screening and speak to a court representative. For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 609-288-9500 ext. 38021 Camden Three technology spaces are available. To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: 856-650-9100 ext. 43090 or 856-650-9100 ext. 43020 For interpreting services: 856-650-9100 ext. 43080 For ADA accommodations: 856-650-9100 ext. 43020 Cumberland/Gloucester/Salem Twenty-nine technology spaces are available: Seven technology spaces are available in Cumberland County Courthouse Ten technology spaces are available in the Gloucester Justice Complex Two technology spaces are available in the Old Courthouse in Gloucester Five technology spaces are available at 5pts in Gloucester Five technology spaces are available in the Salem County Courthouse To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: 856-878-5050 ext. 15826 or Robert.Shorts@NJCourts.gov For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 856-878-5050 ext. 15260 or Tina.Dinicola@njcourts.gov Essex Eleven technology spaces are available: Five in the Hall of Records Two in the Veterans Courthouse Two in the Wilentz Justice Complex Three in the Dr. Martin Luther King Complex To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: 973-776-9300 ext. 57007 or EsxTechRooms.Mailbox@NJCourts.gov For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 973-776-9017 ext. 57197 or megan.gritsman@njcourts.gov . Hudson Four technology spaces are available. To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event, or for other assistance such as interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 201-748-4400 ext. 60759 or michele.mora@njcourts.gov . Hunterdon/Somerset/Warren Eight technology spaces are available: Three at the Somerset Courthouse Three at the Hunterdon Courthouse Two at the Warren Courthouse To reserve a technology space for either a scheduled or unscheduled court event or for an emergent application, contact the relevant trial court division. The main number and extensions are as follows: , Somerset, Hunterdon, Warren, Criminal Division 908-332-7700 ext. 13720 908-824-9750 ext. 13110 908-750-8100 ext. 13130 Civil Division 908-332-7700 ext. 13710 908-824-9750 ext. 13810 908-750-8100 ext. 13910 Family Division 908-332-7700 ext. 13730 908-824-9750 ext. 13830 908-750-8100 ext. 13930 For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: Somerset - 908-332-7700 ext. 13750 Hunterdon - 908-332-7700 ext. 13030 Warren - 908-750-8100 ext. 13010 Other concerns: 908-332-7700 ext. 13240 (Ombudsman) 908-332-7700 ext. 13000 (Court Administration) Mercer Three technology spaces are available: One space is available for civil matters on the 1st floor at the Mercer Civil Courthouse located at 175 S. Broad St. in Trenton. One space is available for family matters on the 2nd floor at the Mercer Civil Courthouse located at 175 S. Broad St. in Trenton One space is available for criminal matters on the 1st floor at the Mercer Criminal Courthouse located at 400 S. Warren St. in Trenton. To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: Family - 609-571-4200 ext. 74380 Civil - 609-571-4200 ext. 76019 Criminal - 609-571-4200 ext. 74074 For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 609-571-4200 ext. 74030 Middlesex Four technology spaces are available: Two in the Main Courthouse Two in the Family Courthouse To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event, or an emergency application or unscheduled matter: Civil and General Equity - 732-645-4300 ext. 88832 or Christina.Reichardt@njcourts.gov Criminal - 732-645-4300 ext. 88144 or Shylo.Rollins@njcourts.gov Family - 732-645-4300 ext. 88712 or Deborah.Sisolack@njcourts.gov Probation Supervision and Child Support - 732-645-4300 ext. 88482 or Gloria.Marconi@njcourts.gov Miscellaneous - 732-645-4300 ext. 88019 or Meghan.CarneyVilela@njcourts.gov For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 732-645-4300 ext. 88010 or John.Pushko@njcourts.gov Monmouth Four technology spaces are available: Two at the courthouse One at Ocean Probation One at the Hall of Records To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: Family - 732-358-8700 ext. 87160 Criminal - 732-358-8700 ext. 87421 Civil - 732-358-8700 ext. 87590 For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 732-358-8700 ext. 87068 or Sharen.Ramirez@njcourts.gov Morris/Sussex Four technology spaces are available: Two spaces in Morris County Courthouse Two spaces in Sussex County Judicial Center To reserve a technology space for a scheduled court event: Morris - 862-397-5700 ext. 75160 or MRS-SSXHelp.mailbox@njcourts.gov Sussex - 862-397-5700 ext. 75080 or Thomas.Jindracek@njcourts.gov To request use of a technology space for an emergent application or unscheduled court matter for Morris/Sussex Vicinage: 862-397-5700 ext. 75160 or MRS-SSXHelp.mailbox@njcourts.gov For other assistance, including interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: Morris - 862-397-5700 ext. 75070 or Thomas.Jindracek@njcourts.gov Sussex - 862-397-5700 ext. 75070 or Thomas.Jindracek@njcourts.gov Ocean Three technology spaces are available. To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event: 732-504-0700 ext. 64355 or James.Castaneda@njcourts.gov For other assistance, including interpreting or an ADA accommodation: 732-504-0700 ext. 64025 or lisa.joyce@njcourts.gov Passaic Seven technology spaces are available in the Passaic Vicinage: Two at the 401 Grand Street Administration Building Two at the 77 Hamilton St. New Courthouse Two at the 71 Hamilton St. Historic Courthouse One at the 63-65 Hamilton St. Courthouse Annex To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event, or for other assistance such as interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 973-653-2910 ext. 24032 or june.zieder@njcourts.gov Union Two technology spaces are available: One room in the Cherry St Annex One room in the New Annex Building To reserve a technology space for a scheduled or unscheduled court event, or for other assistance such as interpreting services or an ADA accommodation: 908-787-1650 ext. 22200or UNN.Facilities@njcourts.gov
- Firearm Removal (ERPO), You can ask the court to remove firearms from someone deemed an immediate threat. This is called an "extreme risk protection order" (EPRO) or firearm removal order. Body, How to File a Petition, While firearm removals do not involve criminal charges, the criminal division of Superior Court handles those requests. Firearm removals and procedures are defined in the Directive #19-19 – Guidelines for Extreme Risk Protective Orders Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018 . The procedure is modeled after Requesting a Restraining Order domestic violence restraining orders , which include firearm removal. Consider a full restraining order if you are a victim of domestic violence. A firearm removal request begins with an ERPO petition. The petition needs to state why the person is a threat to others or at risk for self-harm. It includes questions related to 15 risk factors. The petition needs to tell the court what guns are owned and where they are located. The person filing becomes the “petitioner” and the alleged threat is the “respondent.” File the petition in the county where the respondent lives. If you file outside of the county where the respondent resides, it will be sent to the correct court. Submit the petition to: The Criminal Division Manager Conference Contact List criminal division of Superior Court Mon-Fri, 8:30 am – 5:30 pm. Any state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency at any time. Under the ERPO Act, law enforcement agents can provide information to complete the petition. Actions they can take include: Providing information on what risk factors the court considers. Joining the petition. Referring the petition to additional law enforcement agencies. Filing their own petition. There are special procedures for petitions against law enforcement officers. The petition must be filed where the individual works. This triggers an internal affairs (IA) investigation. The county prosecutor must review the report and decide whether it should be submitted to the court. There are no filing fees for a firearm removal petition, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-23(c)., Who Can File a Petition, Family members can file firearm removal petitions directly with the court. Under N.J.S.A 2C:58-23(a) family members include: A spouse, domestic partner, or partner in a civil union couple. A former spouse, domestic partner, or partner in a civil union couple. A present or previous household member. Any co-parent or guardian of a child in common. Anyone who is expecting a child with the alleged individual. A current or former dating partner. Law enforcement agents are also able to file a petition directly with the court. Anyone not listed above needs to go a law enforcement agency and ask them to file the petition. The agency decides whether to honor the request and file the petition. Law enforcement and prosecutors need to follow specific guidelines for these requests. , Preparing for Court, When you file with the Superior Court, court staff will interview you. Your responses are filed in the protective restraining order system (PROS). The first hearing will be scheduled as soon as possible. During regular court hours, a Superior Court judge will hear the petition. During off hours, a municipal court judge will hear the petition. to provide “good cause” for removing firearms. If successful, the court will issue a temporary firearm removal order. If a municipal judge denies the petition, you can request an immediate appeal hearing with an on-call Superior Court judge. If a Superior Court judge denies the request, you can Appealing a Superior Court, Tax Court, or State Agency Decision appeal with the Appellate Division of Superior Court . The final hearing is scheduled within 10 days of the petition. It can take longer if the respondent needs to be served with the petition. During the final hearing both the petitioner and respondent can make their case. While attorneys are not required, both parties have a right to representation. However, these cases do not qualify for a public defender or other court assistance. Either party seeking representation needs to hire a private attorney. , Defending Yourself in Final Hearings, Respondents have a right to defend themselves in court. You will receive a copy of the petition and have time to prepare your defense for the final hearing. You can request an expedited final hearing. This shortens the time the temporary order is in effect. During the final hearing, you can: Testify in your defense. Present witnesses for your defense. Submit any relevant documents. Cross-examine any witnesses for the petitioner. Present any additional information relevant to your case., Final Firearm Removal Order, The final order is issued if the court finds a “preponderance of evidence” confirming the extreme risk. Upon the order, the respondent must: Surrender all firearms and ammunition to law enforcement. Surrender any license to purchase, own or carry firearms. The respondent cannot own, receive, purchase, or use firearms under the final order. The court can issue a search warrant if there is probable cause that the respondent still possesses firearms. The search warrant can only be issued for the property listed in the petition., Requesting a Termination of a Final Order, The final order stays in effect forever or until another court order. The petitioner or respondent can request termination of the final order. The petition must include why the respondent is no longer a risk. Additional documentation might be required.
- Fines, Restitution and Community Service, Body Overview: If you are sentenced to probation, you might have to pay fines or restitution, , or perform community service, ., Your probation officer will oversee your completion of these requirements. If you fail to make any payment or fail to comply with community service requirements, you might be referred to the Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP) Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP) for court action., Payments, How to pay, Probation Client Portal Online Payment Cash Check Money order Checks and money orders should be made payable to ", Treasurer, State of New Jersey, ." Include your full name and client identification number to ensure proper credit is made to your account. Personal checks returned unpaid will result in the removal of the option to pay by personal check., Fees, For adult cases, a transaction fee will be deducted from your total payment amount every time you make a payment. For payments between $3 and $9.99, the transaction fee is $1. For any payments $10.00 or more, the transaction fee is $2. There is no transaction fee for juvenile cases., Where to pay, You can pay court-ordered fines and fees through the Probation Client Portal Probation Client Portal . Payments can be made at all main probation offices and the county courthouse you were sentenced at Probation Payment Windows Locations *Satellite probation offices cannot accept cash. Probation Payment Windows Locations, County, ATLANTIC, Atlantic County Civil Courthouse 1201 Bacharach Boulevard Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 Atlantic County Criminal Courts Complex 4997 Unami Blvd. Mays Landing, New Jersey 08330, BERGEN, Bergen County Justice Center 10 Main Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601, BURLINGTON, Burlington County Court Facility 49 Rancocas Road Mount Holly, New Jersey 08060, CAMDEN, Camden Probation - Building 6 6 Executive Campus Route 70 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 Camden Child Support - Building 5 5 Executive Campus Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 Camden County Hall of Justice 101 South 5th Street Camden, New Jersey 08103, CAPE MAY, Cape May County Courthouse 9 North Main Street Cape May Courthouse, New Jersey 08210, CUMBERLAND, Cumberland County Courthouse 60 West Broad Street Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302, ESSEX, Essex Probation Services Division 60 Evergreen Place East Orange, New Jersey 07018 Essex County Veterans Courthouse 50 West Market Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Robert N. Wilentz Justice Complex - Family Courthouse 212 Washington Street Newark, New Jersey 07102, GLOUCESTER, Gloucester County Justice Complex 70 Hunter Street Woodbury, New Jersey 08096 Gloucester County Five Points Plaza 1893 Hurfville Road, Rt 41 Deptford, New Jersey 08096, HUDSON, Hudson County Administration Bldg 595 Newark Avenue Jersey City, New Jersey 07306, HUNTERDON, Hunterdon County Justice Center 65 Park Avenue Flemington, New Jersey 08822, MERCER, Mercer County Civil Courthouse 175 South Broad Street Trenton, New Jersey 08650-0068, MIDDLESEX, Middlesex County Courthouse 56 Paterson Street New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903-0964 (Civil and Criminal Cases) Middlesex County Family Courthouse 120 New Street New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 Middlesex - New Street 189 New Street New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 Middlesex - Superior Court Probation Department Satellite office, 262 State Street Perth Amboy, New Jersey 08861 (Checks or Money Orders Only), MONMOUTH, Monmouth County Courthouse 71 Monument Street Freehold, New Jersey 07728 Monmouth -66 2407 Route 66 Ocean, New Jersey 07712, MORRIS, Morristown-Finance Division Office Courthouse Annex 4th Floor, Ann & Court Streets, Morristown, New Jersey 07960, OCEAN, Ocean County Justice Complex 120 Hooper Avenue Toms River, New Jersey 08753, PASSAIC, Passaic County Courthouse 77 Hamilton Street Paterson, New Jersey 07505 Passaic-Probation Division 55 Dale Avenue Paterson, New Jersey 07505 (Only for CEP Hearing and Late Night Reporting), SALEM, Salem-Fenwick Building 85 Market Street Salem, New Jersey 08079, SOMERSET, Somerset County Courthouse 20 North Bridge Street Somerville, New Jersey 08876, SUSSEX, Morristown-Finance Division Office Courthouse Annex 4th Floor, Ann & Court Streets, Morristown, New Jersey 07960, UNION, Union - Division of Finance 2 Broad Street, 3rd Floor Elizabeth, New Jersey 07021 Union - Probation Division Plainfield Satellite Office, 315 E. Front Street Plainfield, New Jersey 07060, WARREN, Warren County Courthouse 413 Second Street Belvidere, New Jersey 07823 Where do payments go? Payments are distributed according to state law: The Victims of Crime Compensation Office (VCCO) provides funds to cover claims made by crime victims. Restitution is a repayment of funds to the victims of your offense. The Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund (LEOTEF) supports the work of law enforcement. The Safe Neighborhood Services Fund (SNSF) provides funds for community law enforcement programs. The Forensic Lab Fee provides funds for county and state crime laboratories. The Drug Enforcement and Demand Reduction Penalty (DEDR) supports local rehabilitation programs and educational services. Fines are paid to the state, county or municipality. The Domestic Violence Victim Fund (DVVF) provides funds to the Department of Human Services, Division of Youth and Family Services to fund programming for domestic violence victims and to educate the public about this issue. The Sex Offender Monthly Penalty provides funds to the Department of Treasury to fund sex offender monitoring The Probation Supervision fee provides funds to the New Jersey State Treasurer for use by the state. The transaction fee provides funds for the court computerization., When should I contact probation?, You should Vicinage Chief Probation Officers Contact List contact probation with any change of circumstances that might affect your ability to pay or perform community service. You also must contact probation with any changes to your address., Helpful Employment Resources:, NJ Re-entry Program NJ Re-entry Program Career One Stop Career One Stop NJ Career Connections NJ Career Connections, Restitution, Overview:, A victim or the family of a victim of a crime committed in New Jersey can be repaid for losses and expenses that resulted from the crime. This repayment is called restitution. All convicted persons might have to pay restitution to the victim or the victim's family. Restitution: Information for Victims - brochure Read more about restitution, Restitution payments, Restitution checks are paid at least once a month as long as the client is making timely payments to Probation Services., How to tell if your check is for restitution, If you have received a check from the State of New Jersey Judiciary and are unsure of its purpose, the client’s name and reference number (i.e. Client ID), and the Court's phone number will be printed on the top of the payment statement for any questions you may have., If restitution checks stop coming, Restitution checks are sent based on the payments received from the person placed on probation. As long as enough funds are received, restitution checks will be generated. The court must have your current address in order to send your payment. Contact your Vicinage Chief Probation Officers Contact List local probation office if your address changes., Community Service, A community service sentence requires a client to perform work without compensation at a private non-profit organization or government agency for a period of time that is decided by the court. Probation will make sure all clients are referred to a suitable community service worksite and will monitor the client’s progress until completion of the court-ordered hours. If community service is the only condition of your sentence, the case is assigned to a community service probation officer. If community service is ordered as only a part of your probation, your supervising probation officer will monitor your community service progress. Failure to comply might result in a summons to appear at a Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP) hearing or your case being returned to the county court you were sentenced at., Whom can I talk to about my community service?, Contact the probation officer assigned to your case., What if I am unable to complete my community service?, You must provide documented evidence of any reason that prohibits you from completing your court-ordered community service for consideration. In this case, you must contact Vicinage Chief Probation Officers Contact List local probation office ., When should I contact probation?, You should Vicinage Chief Probation Officers Contact List contact probation with any change of circumstances that might affect your ability to pay or perform community service. You also must contact probation with any changes to your address., Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP), Overview:, The Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP) gives people who fail to meet their court-ordered payments or community service requirements a chance to set up a reasonable plan to meet these conditions., Whom can I talk to about my case?, If you are on probation, you can talk to your probation officer. If you are not on probation, but still owe money, you can speak to the contact on your payment notices or contact your local probation office, ., If I owe money on more than one case, which one gets paid first?, When there is more than one case, all fines, fees and restitution with the oldest case are paid completely before any money is applied on the next oldest case., CEP Summons, If you receive a CEP summons, you have fallen behind in meeting your existing court-ordered obligations. Those obligations could include the payment of fines or fees or the performance of community service. At the hearing you will be able to explain any change of circumstances that might affect your ability to pay or to perform community service. The hearing will be conducted by a hearing officer., What should I bring to a CEP Hearing?, Bring any documentation that will help the hearing officer review why you are behind with court-ordered obligations. What to Expect at a Comprehensive Enforcement Program Hearing What to expect at your CEP hearing, What happens if I do not show up for a CEP hearing?, A bench warrant might be issued for your arrest. Also, a default order might be issued for further sanctions, such as suspension of your driver’s license; a civil judgment filed against you; a lien against your personal assets; income withholding, wage withholding, or wage garnishment; or a tax offset that sends your state tax return directly to the court., Do I need an attorney to represent me in my collection or community service case?, You can choose to be represented by an attorney, but it is not required. If you wish to have an attorney, you can consult an attorney of your own choosing. If you need help finding an attorney, try asking your local county bar association for a legal referral service phone number or check the NJ State Bar Association NJ State Bar Association website for information on lawyer referral services., What if I receive a summons for CEP, but I am not behind on my payments?, If you get a summons and believe you are up to date with your payments, contact the probation officer listed on your court notice , immediately, . If your appearance is not excused by Probation Services before your scheduled hearing, you must appear in court., Glossary of Common CEP Terms, Arrears : Past due, unpaid fines, fees and/or restitution owed by the person ordered to pay by a court. Bench Warrant : An order from the court giving legal authority to law enforcement to arrest a person for failure to appear for a court hearing or failure to comply with a court order. Civil Judgment : A civil judgment is a statewide lien against all real property owned by the judgment debtor. This means that the property cannot be sold until the lien is satisfied. It could be issued against all real property, bank accounts and/or personal property in order to satisfy financial obligations owed. Client ID Number : This is an identifying number assigned to a probation case. Collection Notice Types : Past Due – This notice means that your account is overdue and the payments on the account must be brought up to date. Delinquency – This notice means court action can be avoided if you pay your overdue amount in full. The next letter you receive will be a court summons. Summons – This notice says that you need to appear at a CEP hearing. You will have a chance to explain any change of circumstances that might affect your ability to pay your court-ordered fines and fees. Community Service Notice Types : Notice of Failure to Comply with Community Service – You will receive this notice if you failed to comply with a condition of your community service. Summons - This notice says that you need to appear at a CEP hearing. You will have a chance to explain any change of circumstances that might affect your ability to pay your court-ordered fines and fees. Court Order : The written decision issued by a court of law. A collection or community service court order says how much is owed or the number of community service hours that must be completed. Disposition : The final settlement of a case, with reference to decisions made by a court. Docket Number : The identifying number assigned to every case filed in the court. Income Withholding/Wage Withholding/Garnishment : A process in which automatic deductions are made from wages or other income to pay a child support obligation. Income withholding has been mandatory since the enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988. Lien : Official claim against funds for payment, for example, a claim against future court settlement(s). Modification of a court order : Any change or adjustment to a previous court order. Non-compliance : Failure to obey a court-ordered obligation. Obligation : Anything that an individual is required to do by law, ordered by a judge. Sanctions : Penalties imposed by the court for violation of a court-ordered obligation. Tax Offset (SOIL) : The amount of money taken from state income tax refund to pay overdue fines, fees or restitution.
- New Jersey Judiciary Transcript Processing Offices, Name Address Contact Transcript Unit Atlantic Family/Civil Atlantic County Civil Courts Building 1201 Bacharach Blvd. Floor 1 Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 Transcript Unit Atlantic Criminal Atlantic County Criminal Courts Complex 4997 Unami Blvd. Mays Landing, New Jersey 08330 Transcript Unit Bergen Bergen County Justice Center 10 Main Street Floor 5 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Transcript Unit Burlington Burlington County Court Facility 49 Rancocas Road Floor 5 Mount Holly, New Jersey 08060 Transcript Unit Camden Camden County Hall of Justice 101 South 5th Street Floor 6 Camden, New Jersey 08103 Transcript Unit Cape May Cape May County Courthouse 9 North Main Street Floor 1 Cape May Courthouse, New Jersey 08210 Transcript Unit Cumberland Gloucester County Justice Complex 70 Hunter Street Woodbury, New Jersey 08096 Transcript Unit Essex Family & General Equity Robert N. Wilentz Justice Complex - Family Courthouse 212 Washington Street Floor 8 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Transcript Unit Essex Criminal & Civil Essex County Veterans Courthouse 50 West Market Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Transcript Unit Gloucester Gloucester County Justice Complex 70 Hunter Street Woodbury, New Jersey 08096 Transcript Unit Hudson Hudson County Administration Bldg 595 Newark Avenue Floor 4 Jersey City, New Jersey 07306 Transcript Unit Hunterdon Ops Division Hunterdon County Justice Center 65 Park Avenue Floor 1 Flemington, New Jersey 08822 Transcript Unit Mercer Mercer County Transcript Office Mercer County Civil Courthouse 175 South Broad Street Floor 2 Trenton, New Jersey 08650-0068 Transcript Unit Middlesex PO Box 964 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903-0964 Transcript Unit Monmouth Monmouth County Courthouse 71 Monument Street Floor 1 Freehold, New Jersey 07728 Transcript Unit Morris Morris - Transcript Office PO Box 910 Morristown, New Jersey 07963 Transcript Unit Ocean 118 Washington Street 118 Washington Street Floor 2 Toms River, New Jersey 08754 Transcript Unit Passaic 71 Hamilton Street 71 Hamilton Street Paterson, New Jersey 07505 Transcript Unit Salem Gloucester County Justice Complex 70 Hunter Street Woodbury, New Jersey 08096 Transcript Unit Somerset Somerset County Courthouse 20 North Bridge Street Floor 2 Somerville, New Jersey 08876 Transcript Unit Sussex Sussex County Judicial Center 43-47 High Street Newton, New Jersey 07860 Transcript Unit Union Union County Courthouse 2 Broad Street Floor 8 Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207 Transcript Unit Warren PO Box 900 Belvidere, New Jersey 07823 Total results: 23
- Forms, Search forms, brochures, and self-help kits. If you have trouble opening a form, right-click on the form link and choose “Save link as…” and download the form to your computer. You will need Adobe Reader to open the form. Please go to our New Jersey Judiciary Forms Help Page forms help page for more information. Catalog Number: 10079 10080 10148 10151 10159 10160 10161 10169 10170 10190 10193 10194 10197 10200 10215 10251 10253 10254 10255 10257 10259 10260 10261 10262 10263 10264 10265 10266 10267 10268 10269 10270 10272 10273 10275 10276 10278 10279 10281 10282 10284 10288 10289 10290 10293 10304 10308 10313 10317 10319 10325 10326 10327 10328 10330 10332 10333 10334 10335 10336 10337 10339 10340 11004 10461 10482 10483 10484 10485 10486 10488 10491 10493 10498 10500 10501 10502 10503 10504 10505 10506 10507 10512 10513 10514 10515 10516 10517 10518 10519 10520 10523 10524 10525 10526 10532 10533 10534 10538 10542 10544 10546 10547 10548 10551 10552 10553 10554 10555 10556 10557 10558 10559 10598 10636 10673 10685 10686 10693 10704 10705 10715 10722 10727 10736 10738 10742 10743 10744 10745 10749 10750 10752 10753 10763 10766 10767 10768 10769 10770 10775 10778 10788 10792 10814 10821 10822 10824 10826 10827 10835 10836 10837 10839 10840 10841 10861 10875 10876 10877 10878 10880 10887 10888 10889 10890 10914 10915 10916 10929 10936 10952 10957 10964 10965 10966 10967 10968 10969 10970 10971 10977 10978 10983 11000 11003 11005 11007 11008 11009 11010 11016 11017 11061 11077 11078 11079 11080 11081 11086 11087 11088 11089 11090 11091 11092 11093 11094 11112 11144 11148 11163 11166 11168 11169 11170 11171 11172 11176 11181 11183 11185 11191 11192 11193 11194 11208 11210 11215 11216 11218 11221 11222 11223 11230 11233 11234 11235 11236 11249 11250 11252 11266 11269 11270 11277 11281 11282 11283 11284 11304 11306 11308 11309 11313 11314 11328 11329 11335 11336 11337 11343 11347 11350 11351 11354 11355 11358 11379 11380 11383 11386 11387 11393 11394 11395 11396 11397 11399 11401 11402 11404 11405 11406 11407 11411 11425 11446 11471 11478 11479 11481 11482 11483 11486 11487 11490 11492 11507 11509 11514 11519 11523 11527 11532 11539 11541 11543 11553 11554 11555 11580 11620 11621 11623 11629 11631 11632 11636 11637 11638 11641 11644 11646 11655 11657 11669 11679 11684 11685 11688 11705 11706 11707 11708 11710 11711 11720 11728 11734 11735 11795 11796 11797 11798 11799 11800 11801 11802 11808 11840 11854 11855 11862 11864 11870 11895 11896 11898 11899 11900 11901 11902 11904 11910 11911 11912 11917 11920 11922 11923 11924 11933 11934 11935 11939 11940 11945 11946 11947 11948 11959 11968 11971 11978 11983 11988 11989 11990 11991 11992 11993 11994 11995 11996 11997 11998 11999 12000 12007 12009 12011 12012 12013 12014 12032 12042 12043 12046 12047 12051 12058 12093 12123 12124 12125 12126 12132 12133 12136 12140 12142 12143 12144 12145 12151 12173 12188 12208 12220 12221 12227 12228 12229 12232 12243 12244 12246 12250 12255 12263 12264 12265 12266 12295 12300 12302 12305 12308 12313 12314 12315 12316 12322 12323 12356 12357 12358 12360 12363 12364 12369 12370 12371 12372 12373 12389 12409 12420 12427 12438 12439 12440 12441 12443 12466 12467 12468 12469 12470 12471 12478 12545 12547 12548 12573 12578 12588 12592 12597 12600 12605 12618 12629 12644 12687 12692 12699 12706 12709 12710 12740 12742 12743 12745 12752 12756 12764 12767 12768 12770 12778 12789 12816 12817 12818 12819 12820 12822 12830 12835 12836 12840 12842 12858 12886 12890 12901 12922 12930 12931 12933 10813a 10813b 12043_instruct 12324 12324b 12325a 12325b 12326a 12326b 12327a 12327b 12328a 12328b 12329a 12329b 12330a 12330b 12331a 12331b 12332a 12332b 12556a 12556b 12557a 12557b 12558a 12558b 12559a 12559b 12560a 12560b 12561a 12561b 12562a 12562b 12563a 12563b 12564a 12564b 12635a 12635b 10355 10294 12936 12946 11712 10950 12476 12402 12530 12365 11165 12030 12620 10959 11727 10541 12961 12463 10637 10543 12231 11263 13007 12979 12976 13004 13006 13064 12999 12973 12751 12790 12791 12792 13065 12967 13133 13142 13151 13153 12941 13154 12535 12536 12537 12538 10110 12968 12969 12970 13174 13001 11064 12196 12393 12392 13208 13235 11463 12092 13187 13252 12643 10202 12333 12234 12334 13260 13261 13146 11783 13267 13269 10747 10748 13194 10746 13270 13274 13263 13266 13234 11544 13282 10296 10844 11913 12604 12892 10945 11360 12908 12577 12911 12996 13322 13323 Type: Form Flyer Instructions Brochure Kit Categories: Access and Fairness Administration Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Appellate Division Attorney/Judge Regulation Board on Attorney Certification (BAC) Children in Court (CIC) Civil Communications/Media Continuing Legal Education (CLE) CPF Criminal Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) DRB EEO Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) Family Finance Forms Help Get Help Human Resoucres Information Technology (IT) Interpreting/Language Services Jury Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (Client Protection Fund - CPF) Municipal Court OAE Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) Office of Management Services (OMAS) Ombudsman/Customer Service Operations Probation Records Superior Court Supreme Court Tax Court Volunteers Keywords: 5A DNA Sample Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) Access and Fairness Access and Visitation (AV) Accident Accommodation Accommodations set Accounts Payable Administration Adoption Adoption set Adult Guardian Adult Guardian Person and Estate Adult Guardian Practice Forms Adult Guardian set Adult Guardian-Estate Adult Guardian-Person Adult Mental Health Supervision Adult Supervision Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) Affidavit Agencies American Disabilities Act Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Android Appeal Appeal Rights Appellate Division Appellate set Appendix Application Application Form Arabic/العربية Arbitration Atlantic Attorney/Judge Regulation Attorneys Attorney-Trustee Audio/Video Audit Authorization Form Automated Interpreting Technolgies (AIT) Automated Trial Court Systems (ATCS) BAC Background Screening Bail Banking and Cash Management Benefits Bergen Board of Bar Examiners Board on Attorney Certification (BAC) Brochure Budget and Accounting Burlington Camden Cape May Careers Case Information Statement (CIS) Case Jacket Case Management CBLP CDR Central Office CEP Certification Certification of Non-Military Service Chancery Child Placement Review (CPR)-FC Docket Child Abuse Child Abuse set Child Abuse/Neglect Child Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Child Custody Child Custody set Child Guardian Child Guardian set Child Placement Review (CPR) - FC Docket Child Support Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Child Support set Child Welfare Mediation (CWM) Childcare Children in Court (CIC) CIS Civil Civil Commitment Civil Forms set Civil Offices CJR CLE Code of Conduct Collect Collect Judgment Colloquy Commencement Communications and Community Relations (CCR) Communications/Media Community Service (CS) Compassionate Release Competency Complaint Complementary Dispute Resolution (CDR) Complex Business Litigation Program (CBLP) Compliance Comprehensive Enforcement Program (CEP) Computer Programming Conditional Discharge Conditional Dismissal Conditional Release Confidential Continuance Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act - COVID-19 Correction Counsel's Office Counterclaim Court Access Court Fees Court Involvement Court Rule Court User Satisfaction Survey COVID-19 CPF Criminal Criminal Case Management (CCM) System Criminal Forms set Criminal Justice Reform (CJR) Crisis Intervention Unit (CIU) CSE CSS set Cumberland CWM DC DC Docket DCP&P Decriminalization Deferred Disposition Designation of Clerk as Agent Diligent Search Direct Pay Conversion Directory Disabilities Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) Dismiss Dispute Resolution Alternatives Dissolution (Divorce) - FM Docket Diversion Diversity Inclusion and Community Engagement (D&ICE) Division of Children Protection and Permanency (CP&P) Divorce Divorce set Domestic Violence (DV) Domestic Violence set Dominican Republic DRB Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Drug Court Drug Offenses DVEM set EAP Early Discharge Economic Mediation eCourts eCourts set EEO eForms EIA Ejectment Electronic Access Program (EAP) Electronic Complaint (e-CDR) Electronic Devices Electronic Monitoring (EM) Electronic Temporary Restraining Order System (eTRO) Emergent Enforce Equal Employment Office Equity Impact Analysis (EIA) ERPO ERPO Forms set Essex Events Eviction Excuse Expedited Expunged Expungement Expungement set Extradition Extreme Risk Protective Order FA Docket Facilities Management Family Family Forms set Family Forms Set FAQ FCIU Fee Waiver Fees FERPO FG Docket Final Protective Order Final Restraining Order Finance Financial Firearms First Appearance Flyer FM Docket FN Docket Foreclosure Foreclosure Mediation Foreclosure set Foreign Reciprocating Countried (FRCs) Forms Help Forms Help set FPO Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) FRO FV Docket General Equity Get Help Gloucester Grants Graves Act Grievance Guardianship Haitian Creole/kreyòl ayisyen Hardship Health and Safety Health Insurance Hiring Home Detention (HD) Hudson Human Resoucres Human Resources Forms set Human Resources set Hunterdon Illegal Lockout Immigration Indigency Information Technology (IT) Instructions Intake Intensive Supervision Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) Intensive Supervision set Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) - Intergovernmental Child Support Internship Interpreting Interpreting/Language Services Interstate Compact Unit (ICU) iPad ISP Judgment of Conviction (JOC) System Judges Judgment Judiciary's Opportunities for Building Success (JOBS) Program Jury Jury Service Juvenile Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile Delinquency set Juvenile Family Crisis Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program (JISP) Juvenile Plea Form Juvenile Supervision Juveniles Kinship and Legal Guardianship (KLG) Kit Korean/한국어 Krol Lack of Consent Landlord Landlord/Tenant Landlord/Tenant set Language Services Forms set Law Clerk Law Division Law Division set Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (LFCP) Leave Legal Guardianship Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) Legal Services plan Letterhead Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Limited English Proficiency (LEP) LSNJ Mandarin Marijuana Marijuana Decriminalization Matrimonial Mediation Megan's Law Mercer Mexico Middlesex Modify Monmouth Morris Motion Motor Vehicle Multi-Jurisdiction Municipal Appeal set Municipal Court Municipal Division set Municipal Forms set Name Change Name Change set NERA New Jersey Kids Deserve Support (NJKiDS) No Early Release Act (NERA) Non-Dissolution Non-Dissolution Notice OAE Ocean Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) Official Strategic Management of Statewide Interpreting Services (OSMOSIS) Ombudsman Program Ombudsman/Community Liaison Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Open Records Opening Statement Operations OPRA Order Organizational Development and Training (OD&T) Out-of-State Out-of-State Child Support Outside Activity Outside Agency Parent Education (PE) Parenting Parenting Coordinator Passaic Payment Alternatives Payroll Penions and Benefits Petition Placement and Classification Plea Plea Form Policies Polish/polski Portuguese/português Position Control Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) Postcard Poster/Sign Postponement Pretrial Intervention (PTI) Pretrial Services Pro Hac Vice (PHV) Pro Se Probable Cause Probate Probation Probation Forms set Property Tax Property Tax set Protective Order (PO) PTI Purchasing Quasi-Criminal Quick Response (QR) code Receipt Record set Records Recovery Court Recovery Court set Recovery Court Supervision Referral Release Form Remote/Virtual Reporting Reporting Form Request Restraining Order (RO) Rules Forms set Safety Assistance Project (SAP) Salem Sample Sanity SASPA SCCO set Sealed Security Self-Representation Service Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA) Sexual Offenses Sign Language Small Claims - SC Docket Small Claims set Somerset Spanish/español SPC Answer set Special Civil Part Special Civil Part Directory Special Civil Part Officers Special Civil set Special Probation State Tax State Tax set Stay Structured Response Grid Substance Abuse Evaluator (SAE) Summons Superior Court Clerk's Office (SCCO) Supervision Supreme Court Supreme Court set Supreme set Surrender Surrogate Sussex Tax Court Taxes Temporary Protective Order Temporary Restraining Order Tenant Termination Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) Timekeeping Title IV-D TPO TPR Traffic Transcripts Treatment Assessment Services for the Courts (TASC) TRO UIFSA UIFSA set Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) Uniform Summary Support Order Union Unions USSO Vacate Veterans Vicinage Violation of Probation (VOP) Virtual Museum Visitation Volunteers Waiver Warrant Warrant to Satisfy Warren Weapon Offenses Welcome to Courts Withdrawal Withdrawal Workers' Compensation Workplace Violence WOS Writ Your Day in Court Audience: Attorneys Agencies Self-help (Pro se) Search Language English Spanish Arabic Bengali Haitian Creole Korean Mandarin Polish Portuguese Russian Turkish Apply Filters Plea-01 Main Plea Form CN: 10079 Translations Available Translation exists logo. Plea-05 Supplemental Plea Form for Certain Sexual Offenses (Megan’s Law/Parole Supervision for Life/Community Supervision for Life) CN: 10080 Translations Available Translation exists logo. Financial Questionnaire to Establish Indigency CN: 10110 Translations Available Translation exists logo. How to Sue for Up To $5,000 in Small Claims Court Motor Vehicle Case CN: 10148 Translations Available Translation exists logo. How to Sue for Up To $5,000 in Small Claims Court Non-Motor Vehicle Case CN: 10151 Translations Available Translation exists logo. Resource Family Information Form CN: 10159 Resource Family Information Form (Word form) CN: 10159 Order to Show Cause and to Appoint a Law Guardian with Care and Supervision (Word form) CN: 10160 Appointment of Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) - Order (Word form) CN: 10161 Foreclosure Case Information Statement (FCIS) - Appendix XII-B2 CN: 10169 Translations Available Translation exists logo. Foreclosure Amount Due Schedule CN: 10170 Tax Court - Small Claims Handbook CN: 10190 Translations Available Translation exists logo. CPR Board Initial Review Checklist CN: 10193 CPR Board Initial Review Checklist (Word form) CN: 10193 Rules Governing Practice in Tax Court Handbook CN: 10194 Written Acknowledgement - Notice of Trial CN: 10197 Translations Available Translation exists logo. Records Request Form (Multipurpose form - use for Tax Court records requests) CN: 10200 Translations Available Translation exists logo. Certification Application for Appointment as Private Prosecutor CN: 10202 Translations Available Translation exists logo. Lemon Law Program Brochure CN: 10215 Application for Appeal and Order CN: 10251 Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 38 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 746 items
- Tell Us How We Are Doing, Take our survey and give us your feedback about your recent Superior Court or municipal court visit. Choose the Superior Court you visited. Complete the survey and save it to your computer. Email the survey to the Ombudsman Directory ombudsman in your county. The ombudsman helps the public learn about the court system. This helps build public trust and confidence in our courts. You can call or email your court ombudsman to ask questions, get forms, or find court offices. We also provide tours, seminars and educational programs about specific court topics. Court User Satisfaction Survey - Atlantic/Cape May Atlantic/Cape May County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Bergen Bergen County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Burlington Burlington County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Camden Camden County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Cumberland/Gloucester/Salem Cumberland/Gloucester/Salem County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Essex Essex County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Hudson Hudson County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Mercer Mercer County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Middlesex Middlesex County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Monmouth Monmouth County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Morris/Sussex Morris/Sussex County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Ocean Ocean County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Passaic Passaic County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Somerset/Hunterdon/Warren Somerset/Hunterdon/Warren County Court User Satisfaction Survey - Union Union County
- Published Appellate Court Opinions, Appellate opinions are posted at 10 a.m. each business day. A "published" opinion is identified as one that sets legal precedent and can be cited in future cases. Start End Search Apply Filters, No Published Appellate Court opinion reported for today May 26, 2025, PAMELA J. GRAZIADEI VS. CAPITAL HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., ET AL. (L-2259-19, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1614-23 Published Appellate May 23, 2025 Summary A-1614-23 Plaintiff, a nurse and acknowledged alcoholic, filed a complaint in the Law Division alleging defendants discriminated against her because of her alcoholism, and an amended complaint alleging defendants retaliated against her for filing the complaint, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, (LAD) N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50. Alcoholism is a disability under the LAD. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court reversed and remanded because: (1) plaintiff was not required to bring her LAD claims in an administrative hearing, nor exhaust administrative remedies; (2) the trial court misapplied Beaver v. Magellan Health Services, Inc., 433 N.J. Super. 430 (App. Div. 2013), as plaintiff's complaint was not a collateral attack on an administrative agency decision, nor an attempt to divest the court of its jurisdiction; and (3) the Board did not have primary jurisdiction after the correct application of the factors provided in Muise v. GPU, Inc., 332 N.J. Super. 140 (App. Div. 2000). Close ANCHOR LAW FIRM, PLLC, ET AL. VS. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1186-21, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0052-23 Published 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 IN RE APPLICATION OF BARBARA EAMES, ETC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY) A-1411-22 Published 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 MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, ETC. VS. OWUSU A. KIZITO, ET AL. (C-000095-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0739-22 Published 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 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. C.C.W. (24-01-0008, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3637-23 Published Appellate April 29, 2025 Summary A-3637-23 This appeal presents a novel statutory construction question under the Overdose Prevention Act (OPA), which is designed to save lives by "encouraging people who witness or experience a suspected drug overdose to seek medical assistance. . . ." N.J.S.A. 24:6J-2. The OPA confers immunity to certain offenders charged with minor drug use/possession crimes that were discovered because police responded to a 911 call for medical assistance. In this case, defendant's friend called 911 to report that she told him that she "wanted to commit suicide." He also reported that defendant "uses crystal meth." Defendant was charged with simple possession of a small amount of methamphetamine found in her wallet by hospital staff. Acknowledging that the OPA is a remedial statute to be interpreted liberally, the court probes the boundaries of the Act's definition of the term "drug overdose," focusing on whether the threat of suicide that prompted the 911 call was the result of defendant's use of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS). The court stresses that the OPA's definition of "drug overdose" is broader than the common meaning of that term. Notably, the statutory definition does not require that the subject is presently intoxicated or "under the influence" of a CDS. Nor does the statutory definition require proof that the drug consumption occurred just before the acute condition arose. The court therefore holds the OPA's plain language does not foreclose the possibility that a defendant might qualify for immunity based on their chronic use of a CDS, i.e., an addiction, provided the defendant proves the acute condition requiring medical assistance was the result of such prior CDS use. The court also holds a psychiatric evaluation may constitute "medical assistance" within the meaning of the OPA, ruling that a person suffering from a psychiatric disorder is not categorically ineligible for immunity. Because the trial court did not focus on the causal nexus between defendant's CDS use and her suicidal ideations, the court remands for a new hearing to address whether defendant can establish that the suicide concerns that prompted the 911 call were attributable to her methamphetamine use. Close J.H. VS. WARREN HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-0423-21, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2896-23 Published Appellate April 28, 2025 Summary A-2896-23 In 2019, the Legislature enacted two laws, which amended and supplemented the statutes of limitations and procedural requirements for civil actions alleging sexual abuse. See L. 2019, c. 120 (Chapter 120); L. 2019, c. 239 (Chapter 239). As part of those amendments, the Legislature eliminated the notice requirement in the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, for victims of sexual abuse. See Chapter 120, § 8 (codified at N.J.S.A. 59:8-3(b)). The Legislature also expanded the type of persons and entities that can be liable for sexual abuse by amending the Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSA Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:61B-1, to eliminate the requirement that a passive abuser be "within the household" of the victim. See Chapter 120, § 4. The court holds that the 2019 amendment eliminating the notice requirement in the TCA applies to common law claims that are directly related to the sexual abuse of a minor. The court also holds that the 2019 amendment to the CSA Act, which eliminated the "within the household" requirement, applies to any action filed after December 1, 2019, and that it is not limited to claims that accrued after December 1, 2019. Accordingly, in this matter, the court affirms a November 30, 2023 order denying partial summary judgment to defendants Warren Hills Board of Education (the Board) and Warren Hills Junior High School (the Junior High School). The Board and the Junior High School had moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff's common law claims should be dismissed because he did not file a timely notice of claim under the TCA, and they were not subject to liability under the CSA Act. The court also affirms an April 11, 2024 order denying the Board's and the Junior High School's motion for reconsideration. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL J. BALBOSA (18-12-1603, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0024-23 Published Appellate April 25, 2025 Summary A-0024-23 The court affirmed the PCR court's denial of defendant's Strickland-based ineffective assistance of counsel claims and concluded: (1) subsections (a) and (b) of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(1) do not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because they criminalize the possession and distribution of child pornography and are neither overbroad nor vague. To the extent this conclusion regarding subsections (a) and (b) is contrary to the decision in State v. Higginbotham, 475 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2023), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 257 N.J. 260 (2024), the court expressly rejects the holding in Higginbotham; and (2) the State's investigation and subsequent prosecution did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. Close KEONA PALMER, ET AL. VS. FLAGSHIP RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORP., ETC. (L-1515-19, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3287-22 Published Appellate April 14, 2025 Summary A-3287-22 Plaintiffs brought claims against defendant, owner of a resort property in Atlantic City, alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Real Estate Timeshare Act (RETA). After a trial, the jury found defendant liable to plaintiffs under both the CFA and RETA and awarded damages under both statutes. After merging the verdicts, the trial court awarded treble damages under the CFA, as well as attorney's fees and prejudgment interest against defendants. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the court held that: the parol evidence rule did not bar plaintiffs from introducing evidence of fraud during trial; plaintiffs were permitted to bring claims pursuant to the CFA and RETA simultaneously; RETA and its accompanying regulations require that a purchaser be given a reasonable opportunity to review a public offering statement; the trial court did not err by submitting a question of contract interpretation to the jury; the trial court did not err by permitting evidence of defendant's alleged RETA violations to go to the jury nor did it present those violations as separate causes of action upon which damages could be award; and finally, the trial court did not err when it increased plaintiffs' attorney's fee award after reconsideration. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MOHAMMAD RAMADAN (22-04-0373, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0345-24 Published Appellate April 11, 2025 Summary A-0345-24 The court granted defendant Mohammad Ramadan leave to appeal from the Law Division's April 4, 2024 order denying his motion to dismiss count two of an indictment charging him with first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, 2C:11-3. Defendant argued the prosecutor gave the grand jury the wrong legal instruction, advising that an attempt to purposefully cause "serious bodily injury resulting in death" constituted a sufficient alternative mental state for the offense of attempted murder. Defendant claimed this error warranted dismissal of the attempted murder count. The court determined that providing the grand jury with incorrect mental state instructions, even though also presenting statements of the correct mental state, created the inherent possibility that the grand jury indicted defendant for attempted murder based on an impermissible mental state. The court cited State v. Gilliam, 224 N.J. Super. 759 (App. Div. 1988), which reversed an attempted murder conviction based upon a similar misstatement of the required mens rea. The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the count of first-degree attempted murder. Close ESTATE OF LEONOR R. DIZON, ETC. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ETC. (L-3466-23, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1724-23 Published Appellate April 8, 2025 Summary A-1724-23 In this Medicaid lien dispute, plaintiff Estate of Leonor R. Dizon (Estate), by its administrator ad prosequendum, Teresa Finamore, appealed from a Law Division order denying its application to extinguish the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services' (Division) lien asserted against the Estate's assets pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7.2 (estate asset statute). The Division's lien sought the recovery of $214,391.95 in Medicaid benefits Dizon (decedent) received after turning fifty-five years old. The Division filed its lien against all the Estate's assets, including any award the Estate received from its pending survivorship action, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-3. The Estate disputed that a survivorship award was subject to a Division lien under the estate asset statute for all of decedent's Medicaid benefits paid, arguing that its interest in the survivorship claims did not constitute property of the estate at the time of decedent's death, as required by the statute. Instead, it contended, the Division was only entitled to reimbursement from an award for decedent's tort-related medical expenses for her injuries pursuant to a separate statutory provision specifically addressing third-party liability recovery, N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7.1. The court concluded the Division's lien was valid against all the Estate's assets under the estate asset statute, which included any survivorship action award, and therefore affirmed the trial court. Close RONALD DONNERSTAG, ET AL. VS. MERISSA BORAWSKI, ETC. (SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION) A-0367-23 Published Appellate April 3, 2025 Summary A-0367-23 Appellants, Central Regional Board of Education (Board) members Ronald Donnerstag, Kristin Lanko, Lisa Snider, Wendy Vacante, Matthew Delprete, Patricia Fortus, Jaime Cestare, Scott Alfano, and Lynne Sweezo, appeal the School Ethics Commission's final agency decisions dismissing their twelve-count complaint under the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 to -34, seeking disciplinary action against fellow Board member, respondent Merissa Borawski. Appellants' allegations targeted Borawski's posts and repost uploaded to her public social media account while she was a Board member-elect and a Board member regarding labor union membership, COVID-19 mandates, and State gender identity curriculum. In addition, appellants allege Borawski violated Governor Philip Murphy's Executive Order 251 by not wearing a facemask at a public Board meeting while a Board member. The court affirms the Commission's grant of Borawski's motion to dismiss allegations in counts one, two, three, four, five, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) regarding her social media posts and reposts criticizing COVID-19 mandates and gender identity curriculum, and non-compliance with Executive Order 251. The Commission correctly determined appellants failed to comply with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(1) because there was no order issued by a court or administrative agency that Borawski violated state law or regulations. The court affirms the Commission's grant of Borawski's motion to dismiss allegations in counts six and seven that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) regarding her social media posts and repost criticizing COVID-19 mandates and applauding the acquittal of an alleged racist. The Commission correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction under the Act over Borawski's posts because the posts were made when she was a Board member-elect. The court reverses the Commission's grant of Borawski's motion to dismiss allegations in count three that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) by not complying with Executive Order 251, and remand for the Commission to address the merits of the count. The Commission arbitrarily determined Borawski's conduct was not a nexus with her role as a Board member and did not have the potential to undermine the authority of the Board. The court affirms the Commission's summary decision finding that the allegations in counts two, four, five, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). There was no evidence Borawski's conduct compromised the Board. The court reverses the Commission's summary dismissal of Borawski's allegations in count one that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) regarding her social media post challenging labor union membership and remand to the Commission to determine the appropriate penalty. The Commission's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable as it was contrary to the credible evidence in the record that the post compromised the Board because it resulted in an unfair labor practice charge being filed against the Board. We remand to the Commission to recommend to the Commissioner of Education the extent of Borawski's penalty. Close RONALD DONNERSTAG, ET AL. VS. HEATHER KOENIG, ETC. (SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION) A-0366-23 Published Appellate April 3, 2025 Summary A-0366-23 Appellants, Central Regional Board of Education (Board) members Ronald Donnerstag, Kristin Lanko, Lisa Snider, Wendy Vacante, Matthew Delprete, Patricia Fortus, Jaime Cestare, Scott Alfano, and Lynne Sweezo, appeal the School Ethics Commission's final agency decision dismissing their five-count complaint under the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 to -34, seeking disciplinary action against fellow Board member, respondent Heather Koenig. The allegations targeted Koenig's posts and reposts uploaded on her public social media account while she was a Board member-elect and Board member, and her violation of Governor Philip Murphy's Executive Order 251 by not wearing a facemask at a public board meeting while a sitting Board member. The court affirms the Commission's dismissal of counts two and five when it granted Koenig's motion to dismiss. The Commission correctly determined count two failed to comply with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(1) because there was no order issued by a court or administrative agency finding that Koenig violated state law or regulations when she did not wear a mask at her Board member swearing-in. The Commission correctly determined count two's allegation that Koenig violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) did not establish she was acting on behalf of the Board or compromised the Board. The Commission also correctly determined it did not have jurisdiction under the Act over the allegations in count five that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because the social media posts were made when Koenig was a Board member-elect, not a sitting Board member. The court reverses the Commission's dismissal of count three when it granted Koenig's motion to dismiss. The count alleges Koenig violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) by not wearing a face mask at a Board meeting because she compromised the Board as her action was perceived to be speaking for the Board and may have encouraged others to follow suit. The Commission's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The allegation is remanded to an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a fact-finding hearing and issue an initial decision to the Commission. The court affirms the Commission's summary dismissal of count four alleging that Koenig's social media post and reposts criticizing the Governor's mask mandate violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). There was insufficient nexus between her conduct and her position as a Board member, and there was no indication that the Board was compromised by this conduct. The court reverses the Commission's summary dismissal of count one alleging that Koenig's social media post encouraging Board employees to rescind their membership in their labor unions violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). The dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable as it was contrary to the credible evidence in the record that the post compromised the Board by resulting in an unfair labor practice charge filed against the Board. We remand to the Commission to recommend to the Commissioner of Education the extent of Koenig's penalty. The penalty, however, shall not be imposed until the Commission makes a final agency decision regarding count three. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NATHANIEL H. RUSSELL (23-02-0362, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0022-23 Published Appellate April 2, 2025 Summary A-0022-23 A jury convicted defendant on several offenses, including two counts of second-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a). The terroristic threats convictions related to statements defendant directed at the victim, who presided as the judge over defendant's municipal court case. Defendant was also convicted of making the threats during a declared period of national, State or county emergency, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant argued the terroristic threats convictions should be reversed because the jury was not charged pursuant to State v. Fair, 256 N.J. 213 (2024), on whether a reasonable person similarly situated to the victim, in this case a municipal court judge with several years of experience as an attorney and a prosecutor, would have viewed defendant's words as threatening violence. Defendant also raised an as-applied substantive due process challenge to his conviction for making the threats during a declared emergency, arguing there was no nexus between his threats and the state of emergency. The court reversed the terroristic threats convictions and ruled Fair has pipeline retroactivity. Although defense counsel seemingly argued the Fair standard in summations, the trial court charged the jury under the then-existing model charges, which did not provide an objective means of measuring whether defendant's statements constituted terroristic threats. The court also held where the State seeks to enhance a third-degree terroristic threats offense by charging a defendant with making threats during a declared period of national, State or county emergency, there must be some rational relationship between the threats and the underlying emergency. Otherwise, the conviction will be vulnerable to an as-applied challenge for vagueness on substantive due process grounds. Reversal was warranted here because the threats defendant directed at the victim did not result from or having anything to do with the pandemic or pandemic-related restrictions, and his municipal court case. Close NOAH BANK, ET AL. VS. MARIE LEE (L-8801-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0315-23 Published Appellate April 1, 2025 Summary A-0315-23 As a matter of first impression, the court addressed the procedural issue of whether the trial court properly entertained plaintiffs' motions to dismiss after they had filed an answer to defendant's counterclaim asserting a defense under Rule 4:6-2(e) or whether plaintiffs were required to file the motion prior to filing their answer. The court concluded the trial court correctly considered the motion under Rule 4:6-2. It determined that Rule 4:6-2, when read in conjunction with Rule 4:6-3, contemplates that a party who raises a Rule 4:6-2(e) defense in its answer will be permitted to make an application to the court prior to trial in much the same way as a motion for summary judgment. The court also addressed whether, in considering defendant's counterclaims for defamation and trade libel, the trial court properly determined plaintiff's statement that defendant was a criminal or engaged in criminal behavior was substantially true and therefore a defense to these causes of action, even though defendant was never convicted of a crime. The court concluded that a conviction is not necessary to render substantially truthful a statement that a person was a criminal or engaged in criminal behavior, and defendant's admissions during her testimony in an underlying federal criminal prosecution rendered plaintiff's statements substantially true irrespective of whether there is a record of a successful prosecution against her. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FRANCK A. AMANG (23-01-0039, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3406-22 Published Appellate March 31, 2025 Summary A-3406-22 This appeal raises a question of first impression under New Jersey law, requiring the court to consider the interplay between the right against self-incrimination, the right to privacy in one's home and effects, and the right to the assistance of counsel. Following defendant's arrest for assaulting his daughters, police administered Miranda warnings and defendant asserted his right to confer with an attorney. The interrogation process immediately ceased. Police went back to the still detained defendant a few hours later and asked him to consent to a search of his home, which he granted. Defendant contends that police did not scrupulously honor his earlier request to consult with an attorney, rendering his consent invalid. The court surveyed cases in other jurisdictions and analyzed different options for how to account for defendant's request to confer with an attorney: (1) treat the prior request as a factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances test used to determine whether consent was given voluntarily; (2) require police when asking for consent to clarify whether a prior request to confer with counsel pertained only to the right against self-incrimination and not to the waiver of other constitutional rights; or (3) treat the prior request to confer with an attorney as a per se bar from asking for consent. After considering the heightened protections accorded to suspects in custody under the New Jersey Constitution and common law, New Jersey's history and tradition of honoring the protective role that defense attorneys play, and the stricter rules in this State for proving the validity of a consent search, the court establishes a bright-line rule to provide clear guidance to police: when a person in custody asks to speak with an attorney, police may not thereafter ask the arrestee to consent to a search when there has been no break in custody. Doing so renders the consent presumptively involuntary. In this case, the trial judge found that the State met its burden of proving the elements of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule by clear and convincing evidence. The court finds no error in the trial judge's application of the inevitable discovery doctrine and affirms defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of the assault firearm and large capacity ammunition magazines police found when executing the consent search. The court also affirms defendant's conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, rejecting defendant's contention the trial judge erred in instructing the jury by failing to sua sponte redact language in the model jury charge not pertinent to the evidence presented by the prosecutor. The court, however, reverses and remands for a new trial on the downgraded simple assault charges because the judge did not adequately respond to a question posed by the jury concerning a parent's authority to use corporal punishment. Close PENELOPE MAUER VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-0197-17 AND L-0388-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0108-24 Published Appellate March 28, 2025 Summary A-0108-24 The primary issue addressed by the court in this appeal is whether the indictment of a partner in a law firm, who withdrew his appearance following the indictment, creates a conflict of interest requiring the law firm to be disqualified from representing defendants, the State of New Jersey and other State entities. Because the underlying indictment was not related to the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, and contract claims filed by plaintiff in the civil action, the court concluded no conflict of interest existed pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Office of the Attorney General, Outside Counsel Guidelines (2022). The court affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for disqualification. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AHJHIR K. JONES (22-06-0343, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1648-23 Published Appellate March 20, 2025 Summary A-1648-23 The court held a Track One Recovery Court candidate is legally eligible for entry into Recovery Court under the second section of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(5), where a firearms charge has been resolved and is no longer pending at the time the applicant seeks admission into Recovery Court. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. THOMAS P. CANALES (17-02-0143, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1310-23 Published Appellate March 14, 2025 Summary A-1310-23 The State appealed the trial court order granting defendant Thomas Canales' motion to dismiss the seven-count indictment for sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal sexual contact relating to three girls under the age of thirteen and one adult female, in separate incidences occurring over a four-month period. Two successive jury trials were held on all charges, with the first declared a mistrial based on jury deadlock. The second trial led to a conviction, which the court vacated and remanded for retrial based on an evidentiary error. On remand, the trial court dismissed the indictment under the fundamental fairness doctrine applying the factors articulated in State v. Abbati, 99 N.J. 418 (1985). On appeal, the court concluded the trial judge mistakenly exercised discretion in dismissing the indictment. The trial judge overlooked the court's prior conclusion that the State proffered substantial evidence during the second trial while evaluating the strength of the State's case, and erroneously weighed putative testimony subject to a jury's credibility determination on retrial. The court concluded that, on this record, consideration of the Abbati factors and prevailing law warranted reversal and remand for a new trial. Close BLACKRIDGE REALTY, INC. VS. THE CITY OF LONG BRANCH, ET AL. (L-0190-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1400-23 Published Appellate March 6, 2025 Summary A-1400-23 Former redeveloper Blackridge Realty, Inc. ("Blackridge") challenged the legality of an amendment ("Plan Amendment") to the City of Long Branch's ("City") Redevelopment Plan and a two-million-dollar payment made by redeveloper 290 Ocean, LLC to the City as part of its redevelopment agreement. 290 Ocean proposed a redevelopment project to the City that would require an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The resulting Plan Amendment relaxed several previous restrictions contained within the original Redevelopment Plan that had applied to Blackridge's redevelopment project. The City's planner, City council, and mayor all approved the Plan Amendment, finding it consistent with the City's Master Plan and in the City's best interest. The City and 290 Ocean negotiated a redeveloper agreement, which included a provision requiring 290 Ocean to pay a two-million-dollar fee to the City to be used to partially off-set the cost to construct a senior center. Soon after the Plan Amendment was adopted and 290 Ocean's redeveloper agreement with the City was finalized, Blackridge filed a Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs challenging the Plan Amendment's legality and the payment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City and 290 Ocean. The court concludes 290 Ocean's two-million-dollar payment was a lawful, negotiated fee intended to defray the City's costs as authorized in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(f) of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law ("LRHL"). It determines the LRHL does not impose any restrictions limiting payments to the recovery of costs the municipality will incur as a direct result of the redevelopment project, as long as the fee is negotiated at arm's length and collected to effectuate the purposes of the LRHL and the City's Master Plan. Unlike the Municipal Land Use Law ("MLUL"), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-42, the LRHL contains no explicit nexus requirement regarding the amount of payment a municipality may charge a redeveloper to defray its costs associated with redevelopment. The LRHL instead empowers a municipality to "negotiate and collect revenue from a redeveloper to defray the costs of the redevelopment entity" in order "to carry out and effectuate the purposes of [the LRHL] and the terms of the [municipality's] redevelopment plan." N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(f). The statute's plain terms permit a municipality to "negotiate" any payment amount from a redeveloper without requiring a causal connection between the payment and the redeveloper's proposed project, as long as the municipality demonstrates the payment will defray costs to the municipality associated generally with redevelopment. The language authorizing a municipality to "negotiate and collect revenue from a redeveloper to defray the costs of the redevelopment entity" is plain, unambiguous, and markedly different from the language set forth in the MLUL payment provision. Compare N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(f) with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-42. The Court cautions, regardless of which statute applies, the need for transparency with respect to any municipality's negotiated payment from a redeveloper remains. Transparency avoids the appearance that "'[a]pprovals would be granted or withheld depending upon the board members' arbitrary sense of how much an applicant should pay.'" See Pond Run Watershed Ass'n v. Twp. of Hamilton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 397 N.J. Super. 335, 359 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Nunziato v. Plan. Bd. of Edgewater, 225 N.J. Super. 124, 134 (App. Div. 1988)). It notes transparency is critically important when a municipality provides a benefit to a redeveloper, so the public is assured the negotiations proceeded at arms-length. Transparency is fundamental to maintain public trust, to ensure accountability, and to prevent the appearance of favoritism or impropriety in government decision-making. See Jersey Pub. Co. v. N.J. Expressway Auth., 124 N.J. 478, 492 (1991) (emphasizing the necessity of transparency to uphold public trust and confidence in governmental processes). The court concludes the City had been transparent in its negotiation of payment with 290 Ocean and its intended use of the funds. The court also concludes the Plan Amendment was a lawfully-enacted alteration to the Redevelopment Plan that did not amount to impermissible spot zoning, and Blackridge did not have designated developer status that would allow it to veto the Plan Amendment. Therefore, it affirms the decision of the trial court. Close DIANE VOYNICK VS. BRIAN VOYNICK (FM-14-1395-99, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1264-23 Published Appellate March 5, 2025 Summary A-1264-23 In this appeal, we address the legal standards to be applied by a reviewing court concerning applications for termination or modification of permanent alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3) based on the retirement of an obligor when the judgment or order establishing the alimony obligation was entered prior to the 2014 amendment of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Based on the language in subsection (j)(3), after an obligor has shown they have reached a "good faith retirement age," a prima facie showing of changed circumstances may be established by an obligor satisfying the standards set out in the Court's seminal holding of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980). A typical method of showing a prima facie changed circumstance is through proof of a decrease in an obligor's financial circumstances due to their retirement affecting their continuing ability to pay alimony at the level set forth in the current judgment or order. Here, we hold under subsection (j)(3), that a prima facie change of circumstance can also be shown by an obligee's financial disclosure or other evidence in the record exhibiting: (1) an obligee has adequately saved for retirement and no longer has a continuing need for alimony as set forth in the order or judgment to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage; or (2) an obligee had the ability to adequately save for retirement after the final judgment of divorce and, if they had done so, would no longer have a continuing need for alimony as set forth in the order or judgment to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. Discovery and a hearing are necessary if genuine issues of material fact exist related to an obligee's ability to have adequately saved for retirement affecting their continuing need for alimony. At a hearing, under subsection (j)(3) the obligor has the burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that a modification or termination of alimony is warranted based on the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3)(a to -h). Close Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 55 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 1081 items
- Published Tax Court Opinions, Tax Court opinions are posted at 10 a.m. each business day. A "published" opinion is identified as one that sets legal precedence and can be cited in future cases. Start End Search Apply Filters, No Published Tax Court opinions reported for today May 26, 2025, BARRISTER CIGARS, LLC V. DIR., DIV. OF TAXATION 09089-22 - BARRISTER CIGARS, LLC V. DIR., DIV. OF TAXATION Published Tax April 1, 2025 Summary 09089-22 - BARRISTER CIGARS, LLC V. DIR., DIV. OF TAXATION, STATE TAXATION – TOBACCO AND VAPORS PRODUCT TAX, Tax Court: Barrister Cigars, LLC v. Dir., Div. of Taxation , Docket No. 009089-2022; opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided April 1, 2025. For plaintiff - Matthew D. Lee, Esq., Jonathan M. Wasser, Esq. (Fox Rothschild, LLP, attorney); for defendant - Michael J. O’Malley, Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Held: Plaintiff, a retailer but also a “distributor” as that term is defined by the Tobacco and Vapors Product Tax (“TPT”) Act (“TPT Act”), is not barred from using the “wholesale price” as the base for computing its TPT liability simply because it does not purchase tobacco products directly from the manufacturer. However, because “wholesale price” is statutorily defined as the “actual price for which a manufacturer sells tobacco products to a distributor,” plaintiff cannot use estimates provided by its suppliers as the base for computing its TPT liability. Plaintiff should be given an opportunity at trial to prove the “wholesale price” of its tobacco purchases for the tax years at issue with objective and credible evidence. Therefore, the court denies both parties’ summary judgment motion on this issue. In addition, there is no statutory authority for a distributor to deduct estimated federal excise tax from the tax base. Therefore, the court grants defendant’s summary judgment on this issue. (29 Pages) Close MATRIX BORDENTOWN, LOT 2, LLC V. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION 13007-19 Published Tax March 25, 2025 Summary 13007-19, REALTY TRANSFER FEE – REFUND CLAIM OF 1% GRANTEE FEE - FARM – MANSION TAX, Tax Court: Matrix Bordentown, Lot 2, LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation , Docket No. 013007-2019; opinion by Bedrin Murray, J.T.C., decided March 25, 2025. For plaintiff – Joseph G. Buro (Zipp & Tannenbaum, LLC, attorneys); for defendant – Anthony D. Tancini (Matthew Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Held: Plaintiff challenges defendant’s denial of its claim for refund of the one percent realty transfer fee imposed on a grantee in transfers greater than $1,000,000 for certain classes of real property. In cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties urge contrary interpretations of N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(a)2(a), which imposes the fee upon the transfer of Class 3A farm property that includes a building or structure “intended or suited for residential use.” The fee includes any other real property transferred to the same grantee in conjunction with the 3A farm property. N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(a)(2)(b). In this matter, plaintiff purchased the property to develop as an industrial site. The transfer consisted of three subparcels, including a half-acre lot containing a vacant and dilapidated farmhouse which plaintiff intended to demolish. At deed recordation, plaintiff was assessed a transfer fee of one percent of the total deed consideration of $4,703,160 based on the existence of a structure intended for residential use on the 3A farm parcel. Plaintiff contends that by “intended”, the Legislature meant the intent of the grantee as to the future use of the farmhouse, and that by “suited for”, the Legislature meant suitable for habitation. The court concludes that the plain language of the statute militates against this interpretation. Further, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended for the application of the 1% fee to be decided based on subjective measurements. Moreover, defendant’s interpretation of tax statutes carries a presumption of validity. Provided defendant’s application of tax statutes is not plainly unreasonable, the court shall accord due deference to same. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. (13 Pages) Close EXELON GENERATION CO LLC, ETC V. TOWNSHIP OF LACEY/OYSTER CREEK ENVIRONMENAL PROTECT V. TOWNSHIP OF LACEY 02147-18 EXELON GENERATION CO LLC, ETC V. TOWNSHIP OF LACEY/OYSTER CREEK ENVIRONMENAL PROTECT V. TOWNSHIP OF LACEY Published Tax Feb. 25, 2025 Summary 02147-18 EXELON GENERATION CO LLC, ETC V. TOWNSHIP OF LACEY/OYSTER CREEK ENVIRONMENAL PROTECT V. TOWNSHIP OF LACEY, LOCAL PROPERTY TAXATION – REAL PROPERTY – PERSONAL PROPERTY - INTENTION OF PERMANENT AFFIXATION – LEGISLATION, INTERPRETATION – BUSINESS RETENTION ACT – CHAPTER 117, Tax Court: Exelon Generation Company, LLC, C-O Schwer/Oyster Creek Environmental Protect v. Township of Lacey ; Docket Nos. 002147-2018, 004238-2019, 007533-2020, 006775-2021, 005359-2022, 003409-2023, 004088-2024, opinion by Cimino, J.T.C., decided February 25, 2025. For plaintiff – Farhan Ali (McCarter & English LLP; Frank E. Ferruggia and Farhan Ali, on the Brief); for defendant – Andrea E. Wyatt, (Rothstein, Mandell, Strohm, Halm & Cipriani, P.A.)., Held, : Taxpayers challenge whether storage casks which house highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel are subject to taxation as real property. Taxpayers must store the spent fuel in the casks to protect the public and the environment from exposure to harmful radiation emitted from the spent fuel. To be taxable as real property, the storage casks must be affixed permanently. Taxpayers assert the spent fuel and storage casks are on-site temporarily until a disposal facility opens to accept the spent fuel from not only this site, but also other sites across the nation. The Township asserts the spent fuel and storage casks are on-site permanently. By law, there is nowhere to move the spent fuel. Though there have been plans over the course of decades for various disposal facilities, the spent fuel has continued to accumulate at the site since the 1970s. The court determines the storage casks are taxable since the Taxpayers cannot transfer the spent fuel to another site. (Judges Joseph M. Andresini and Michael Gilmore did not participate in the consideration of publication of this matter.) (30 pages) Close GABRIEL ADES V. BOROUGH OF DEAL 07334-2024 - GABRIEL ADES V. BOROUGH OF DEAL Published Tax Jan. 24, 2025 Summary 07334-2024 - GABRIEL ADES V. BOROUGH OF DEAL, LOCAL PROPERTY TAXATION - FREEZE ACT APPLICATION, Tax Court; Gabriel Ades v. Borough of Deal ; Docket No. 007334-2024, opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided January 24, 2025. For plaintiff - Chad E. Wolf (Wolf Vespasiano LLC, attorney); for defendant - Paul V. Fernicola (Fernicola & Associates, LLC, attorney)., HELD, : A final judgment of a county board of taxation that is coded 2B, which stands for “presumption of correctness not overturned,” does not qualify as a base year’s final judgment for purposes of the application of the Freeze Act, N.J.S.A. 54:3-26. This is because the judgment was not the result of a value determination by the county board. That the county board of taxation’s judgment re-states or recites the original assessment in the “judgment” column does not change judgment into one resulting from a determination of the value of the subject property. (17 Pages) Close Archit & Mona Amin v. Director, Division of Taxation 07430-22 Archit & Mona Amin v. Director, Division of Taxation Published Tax Dec. 31, 2024 Summary 07430-22 Archit & Mona Amin v. Director, Division of Taxation STATE TAXATION - GROSS INCOME TAX Tax Court: Amin et al. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation , Docket No. 007430-2022; opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided December 31, 2024. For plaintiff – Kara M. Kraman, Esq., Irwin M. Slomka, Esq. (Blank Rome, LLP, attorney); for defendant – Anthony D. Tancini (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Held: The court reversed defendant’s determination to include I.R.C. § 965 income as “deemed repatriation dividends” under N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1(f). The latter statute unambiguously defines “dividends” as “any distribution in cash or property made by a corporation . . . out of accumulated [or current] earnings and profits,” thus includes only actual payments or distributions to a shareholder. Here, the income realized by the controlled foreign corporations, was not actually or constructively distributed to plaintiffs (their shareholders), who were nonetheless mandated to federally report such income. The court also disagreed with defendant’s contention that plaintiffs should report such income because they did so federally and N.J.S.A. 54A:8-3 requires a taxpayer to follow the same federal methods of accounting for New Jersey Gross Income Tax purposes. (23 Pages) Close LA TRONCAL FOOD CORP. AND VICENTE INTRIAGO V. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION 13472-2017 Published Tax Oct. 2, 2024 Summary 13472-2017 STATE AND LOCAL TAXES – SALES TAX, IMPOSITION OF TAX – ADMINISTRATION & PROCEDURE, ASSESSMENTS – PRESUMPTIONS, REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTIONS – EVIDENCE – LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY - HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS – BUSINESS RECORDS – PUBLIC RECORDS Tax Court: La Troncal Food Corp. and Vincente Intriago v. Dir., Div. of Taxation ; Docket No. 013472-2017, opinion by Nugent, J.T.C., decided October 2, 2024. For plaintiff – Chinemerem Njoku (C.N. Njoku, LLC, attorney); for defendant – Heather Lynn Anderson, Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Held: Where defendant’s auditor did not testify at trial, the court rejected defendant’s proffered lay opinion testimony from the auditor’s supervisor regarding the reasonableness of the auditor’s actions in setting the estimated tax assessment. The court found the witness’s testimony was inadmissible under Evid. R. 701 due to the supervisor’s lack of personal knowledge of the auditor’s examination. The court also rejected defendant’s proffer of the non-testifying auditor’s report and work papers as an exception to hearsay under Evid. R. 803(c)(6) and Evid. R. 803(c)(8) since the data underlying the estimated assessment included information obtained from the wrong business and the auditor’s methodology was unexplained. The court found the documents untrustworthy and thus, could not conclude that the auditor performed his duty in a “proper, careful and prudent manner” for purposes of Evid. R. 803(c)(8). The court found plaintiff overcame the presumption of correctness that attaches to the tax assessment by production of credible evidence attacking the reasonableness of the methodology and data the auditor utilized. The court further found the methodology was aberrant given the auditor’s collection and use of unreliable data wholly irrelevant to Taxpayer’s business and unexplained methodology. Accordingly, the court set the assessment aside. The court determined plaintiff’s expert’s reconciliation of plaintiff’s sales records to be credible, thus, plaintiff met its burden of persuasion that the sales tax and corporate business tax owed should be less than that owed under defendant’s estimated assessment. (38 pages) Close TOWN OF MORRISTOWN V MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION 005100-24 TOWN OF MORRISTOWN V MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION Published Tax July 25, 2024 Summary 005100-24 TOWN OF MORRISTOWN V MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, FINANCE. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS. ADMINISTRATION & PROCEDURE, ASSESSMENTS. STATE & LOCAL TAXES, REAL PROPERTY TAXES. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, CLAIMS BY & AGAINST. LEGISLATION, INTERPRETATION. HEARINGS, EVIDENCE. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS, RELATION BACK. , Tax Court: Town of Morristown v. Morris County Board of Taxation ; Docket No. 005100-2024, opinion by Novin, J.T.C., decided July 24, 2024. For plaintiff – Emil H. Philibosian and Shaun S. Peterson (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorneys); for defendant - Michelline Capistrano Foster, Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Defendant argued, under motion for summary judgment, that because plaintiff failed to object to defendant’s 2024 preliminary Morris County equalization table at the county hearing, under N.J.S.A. 54:3-18, plaintiff was precluded from challenging defendant’s 2024 final Morris County equalization table before the Tax Court under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-4a. Defendant also argued that plaintiff’s challenge to the 2024 final Morris County equalization table was untimely filed under R. 8:4-2(a)(1), and that plaintiff cannot demonstrate defendant’s adoption of the 2024 final Morris County equalization table was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, defendant sought dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Holding : The court found the statutory language under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-4a and N.J.S.A. 54:51A-5b, permitting a taxing district or taxpayer to challenge a final county equalization table, to be clear and unambiguous. Our Legislature required: (i) the filing of a timely a complaint in the Tax Court; (ii) the complaint must be served on the county board of taxation and on the chief executive officer and the clerk of the Board of Chosen Freeholders and on the clerk of every taxing district in the county; (iii) the complaint shall not suspend the apportionment of moneys or collection of taxes in the county; (iv) the Tax Court hearing shall be conducted in the county; (v) five days’ advance written notice of the hearing must be given by mail to the governing body of each taxing district in the county; and (vi) the hearing shall be conducted and a decision rendered on or before September 10, annually. The court concluded that the Legislature did not impose any requirement that a taxing district object to a preliminary county equalization table, as a prerequisite to challenging a final county equalization table before the Tax Court. In addition, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed, under R. 8:4-2(a)(1). Finally, the court discerned that whether the adoption of the 2024 final Morris County equalization table is arbitrary and capricious, or whether the table is unreasonable, incorrect, or plainly unjust, and impresses upon plaintiff a substantially excessive share of the county tax burden, is a disputed material fact. Accordingly, the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (38 pages) Close DONNA PORCARO V. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION 012296-2020 Published Tax June 3, 2024 Summary 012296-2020, STATE GROSS INCOME TAX, Tax Court: Donna Porcaro v. Director, Division of Taxation , Docket No. 012296-2020; opinion by Bedrin Murray, J.T.C., decided May 31, 2024. For plaintiffs – Donna Porcaro (Self-Represented); for defendant – Linzhi Wang (Matthew Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Held: Plaintiff’s challenge to defendant’s denial of her claim for a refund of New Jersey gross income tax (GIT) for tax year 2016 is dismissed as untimely, depriving this court of subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the totality of credible testimonial and documentary evidence presented, the court finds that plaintiff received defendant’s December 21, 2017 final determination denying plaintiff’s refund claim in December 2017, and not in May 2020 as plaintiff alleges. Therefore, plaintiff was unable to overcome the presumption of receipt that attaches to defendant’s final determination under N.J.S.A. 54:50-6(a). As such, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. (18 Pages) Close FREDA, JOSEPH A. BY ACME AS TENANT V CITY OF SEA ISLE CITY 06381-23 - FREDA, JOSEPH A. BY ACME AS TENANT V CITY OF SEA ISLE CITY Published Tax March 6, 2024 Summary 06381-23 - FREDA, JOSEPH A. BY ACME AS TENANT V CITY OF SEA ISLE CITY, LOCAL PROPERTY TAXATION – MUNICIPAL CHARGE – NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT FEE – PLANNING BOARD ESCROW FEES – LEGISLATION, INTERPRETATION – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, FINANCE, Tax Court: Freda, Joseph A. by Acme as tenant v. City of Sea Isle City ; Docket No. 006381-2023, opinion by Cimino, J.T.C., decided March 5, 2024. For plaintiff – Pablo M. Kim(Heinze Law, P.A.); for defendant – Paul J. Baldini, (Paul J. Baldini, P.A.)., Held, : A tax appeal cannot go forward if a municipal charge is not paid. Municipal charge is a term of art defined by the Legislature. Since neither the non-residential development fee nor the planning board escrow fees constitute a municipal charge in this case, nonpayment cannot bar a tax appeal. (11 pages) Close WESTERHOLD, JOHN, ET AL V. TOMS RIVER TWP, ET AL 10281-20 WESTERHOLD, JOHN, ET AL V. TOMS RIVER TWP, ET AL Published Tax Feb. 21, 2024 Summary 10281-20 WESTERHOLD, JOHN, ET AL V. TOMS RIVER TWP, ET AL, THIRD PARTY APPEALS; TRANSFERS OF MATTERS NOT COGNIZABLE IN TAX COURT TO LAW DIVISION, Tax Court: Westerhold v. Toms River Township , Docket Nos. 008087-2022, 007534-2023, 009583-2022, 007535-2023; Westerhold v. Brick Township, Docket Nos. 010281-2020, 010282-2020, 008086-2022, 007536-2023, 008085-2022, 007532-2023, opinion by Fiamingo, J.T.C., decided February 20, 2024. For plaintiffs - Paul Tannenbaum, Peter Zipp, Michael Kurpiewski (Zipp & Tannenbaum, attorneys). For defendant, Toms River Township – Kelsey A. McGuckin-Anthony (Dasti, Murphy, Ulaky, Loutsouris & Connor, attorneys); for defendant, Brick Township – Scott W. Kenneally (Starkey, Kelly, Kenneally, Cunningham, et al., attorneys). , HELD, : Plaintiffs’ complaints contesting the local property tax assessments of third parties filed after February 21, 2021, were not cognizable in the Tax Court as a result of amendment to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 eliminating subject matter jurisdiction over such appeals in the County Boards of Taxation and the Tax Court; third party tax appeals filed in the Tax Court after February 21, 2021, should be transferred to the Law Division pursuant to R.1:13-4, to be heard as actions in lieu of prerogative writs, per R. 4:69. (11 pages) Close SHERYL ALEMANY V. TWP. OF MARLBORO 07209-2024 - SHERYL ALEMANY V. TWP. OF MARLBORO Published Tax Jan. 30, 2024 Summary 07209-2024 - SHERYL ALEMANY V. TWP. OF MARLBORO LOCAL PROPERTY TAX – VETERAN’S EXEMPTION – ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Tax Court: Alemany v. Township of Marlboro , Docket No. 007209-2023; opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided January 29, 2024. For plaintiff - Sheryl Alemany, self-represented; for defendant - Lani M. Lombardi, Esq. (Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys). HELD: Plaintiff, who served in the National Guard, was declared 100% and permanently disabled due to a service-connected disability by the federal Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and was honorably released by the U.S. Army. Defendant denied local property tax exemption for her residence under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 because federal Form DD-214 stated that she was released from “active duty training” and the pre-2019 precedent held that veterans training in the National Guards were not entitled to the exemption. The court found that the New Jersey Constitution and N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 require only “active service” in the Army; the Form DD-214 evidenced that plaintiff was in active service with the U.S. Army National Guard; and full-time National Guard duty is considered as “active service” under the federal military law; therefore, plaintiff qualified for the exemption. The term “active duty training” in Form DD-214 cannot be viewed in a vacuum and solely control determination of plaintiff’s qualification for the exemption. (10 pages) Close Doreen A. Scott v. Director, Division of Taxation 101435-22 - Doreen A. Scott v. Director, Division of Taxation Published Tax Dec. 22, 2023 Summary 101435-22 - Doreen A. Scott v. Director, Division of Taxation STATE TAXATION – EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT – GROSS INCOME TAX – FILING STATUS Tax Court: Doreen A. Scott v. Dir., Div. of Tax’n ; Docket No. 010435-2022, opinion by Cimino, J.T.C., decided December 22, 2023. For plaintiff – Doreen A. Scott, pro se.; for defendant – Michelline Capistrano Foster, Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Held: In this challenge to the Director’s denial of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Ms. Scott filed her tax returns as head of household. Her husband, Robert Scott, filed as single. Since the Scotts are married and living together, Ms. Scott cannot file as head of household and Mr. Scott cannot file as single. Instead, their tax status is married, either joint or separate. The Director selected married-separate which maximizes the State’s recovery. The Scotts want married-joint which reduces, but does not eliminate, the EITC. The Director argues that taxpayers must file a married-joint federal return to qualify for the credit. The court rejects this contention. Further, barring any specific statutory prohibition, married taxpayers are entitled to select whether they want a tax status of joint or separate. An incorrect selection of tax status, such as head of household or single, does not preclude a married-joint return, nor allows the Director to impose married-separate status. The Scotts are entitled to the EITC, albeit somewhat reduced. (25 pages) Close JANTZEN, GIUSEPPIN NINA & MATTHEW D. V GREEN TOWNSHIP 008224-2022, 0082269-2022 Published Tax May 31, 2023 Summary 008224-2022, 0082269-2022 ADDED ASSESSMENT APPEALS (N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.11) – CASE TRACK REASSIGNMENT (R. 8:6-7) Tax Court: Jantzen, Giuseppin Nina & Matthew D. v. Green Township; Docket Nos. 008224-2022 & 008229-2022, opinion by Bianco, J.T.C., decided May 30, 2023. For plaintiff – Kevin S. Englert (The Englert Law Firm, L.L.C.; attorney); for defendant – Robert B. McBriar (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, L.L.P.; attorney). Plaintiff Taxpayers moved to change the small claims track designation assigned by the Tax Court Management Office for both above-referenced docket numbers, to the standard track to secure more comprehensive discovery. Defendant Township cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the added assessment appeal under docket number 008224-2022 as untimely pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.11. The court denied Defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the added assessment appeal finding that the Township did not establish that the Tax Collector mailed notice of the 2021 added assessment to the Taxpayers, nor did the Taxpayers have constructive notice of the added assessment, and, Taxpayers were further denied a hearing before the Sussex County Board of Taxation. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion the change the track designation in both matters finding that the change is necessary for Plaintiffs to pursue their claims against Defendant. (26 Pages) Close Levy, Morris v. City of Long Branch 000448-2021 - Levy, Morris v. City of Long Branch Published Tax May 8, 2023 Summary 000448-2021 - Levy, Morris v. City of Long Branch LOCAL PROPERTY TAX Tax Court: Levy v. City of Long Branch, Docket No. 000448-2021, opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided May 5, 2023. For plaintiff - Michael I. Schneck (Schneck Law Group, LLC, attorney) and Robert E. Spiotti (Spiotti & Associates, PC, attorney); for defendant – Shaun Peterson (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP, attorney). Held: Parties reached a global settlement agreement as to plaintiff’s complaint in the Tax Court for tax year 2021 and his petition before the county board of taxation for tax year 2022. The stipulation in the Tax Court matter was silent on the Freeze Act’s application. The stipulation in the County Board matter included plaintiff’s express waiver of the Freeze Act. Based on the four corners of the Tax Court stipulation, the court found that plaintiff did not waive application of the Freeze Act in the Tax Court matter. Based on the record, the court found that plaintiff’s waiver of the Freeze Act in the County Board matter did not extend to, nor would be implied in settlement of the Tax Court matter. The court was unpersuaded that the only base year in a multi-year settlement must be the last year of the value judgment. The court was also unpersuaded that, without more, the County Board’s judgment is proof of a change in value for Freeze Act purposes. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for application of the Freeze Act to tax year 2023 based on the Tax Court’s final value judgment for tax year 2021. (15 Pages) Close Christopher Gill v Director, Division of Taxation 004035-2021 - Christopher Gill v Director, Division of Taxation Published Tax May 2, 2023 Summary 004035-2021 - Christopher Gill v Director, Division of Taxation STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, RESPONSIBLE PERSON LIABILITY FOR GROSS INCOME TAX-ER AND SALES AND USE TAX. Tax Court: Gill v. Director, Division of Taxation, Docket No.004035-2021, opinion by Fiamingo, J.T.C., decided May 1, 2023. For plaintiff - Maria L. Dooner; for defendant Lindsey R. Curewitz (Matthew Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). HELD: Plaintiff moved to apply the limitations period for assessment of tax to imposition of responsible person liability for gross income tax withholding under N.J.S.A. 54A:9-6(f) and (g) and for sales and use tax under N.J.S.A. 54:32B-2(w). Director opposed and moved to uphold notification of responsible person status issued beyond limitation periods of the Gross Income Tax Act and Sales and Use Tax Act. The court ruled that the notification of responsible person for purposes of imposing the penalty assessed by N.J.S.A. 54A:9-6(f) and/or (g) for gross income tax employer withholding required by N.J.S.A. 54A:7-1 et seq. was subject to the limitations period applicable to assessment of gross income tax. The court ruled that no limitations period applied to the notification of responsible person liability for Sales and Use Tax, as such tax by statute was assessed against the responsible person upon the filing of the return by the seller. 21 pages Close OCEAN GROVE CAMP MEETING ASSOC, ETC V TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE (013693-2017) A-2730-20 Published Tax Feb. 13, 2023 Summary A-2730-20 No summary available for this Appellate Division opinion which has been approved for publication in the Tax Court Reports. Close NJ State Firemen's Assn. v. Director, Div. of Tax, et als 00151-19 Published Tax Jan. 31, 2023 Summary 00151-19 Tax Court: New Jersey State Firemen’s Association v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, Philadelphia Contributionship Ins. Co., Germantown Insurance Co., Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., and Strathmore Ins. Co. , Docket No. 000151-2019, opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided January 30, 2023. For plaintiff - Michael E. Sullivan (Parker McCay, P.A., attorney); for defendant, Dir., Div. of Taxation - Michael J. Duffy (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney), for remaining defendants and intervenor Strathmore Ins. Co. - Michael A. Guariglia and Jamie Zug (McCarter & English, LLP, attorney). Held: Defendant, Division of Taxation’s (“Taxation”) decision via its web-published Notice in 2016, to extend the statutory cap on premiums applied when computing the insurance premium tax (IPT) for domestic and foreign companies, in calculating the fire insurance premium tax (FIPT) paid to plaintiff by foreign insurers, is contrary to the plain language and intent of the FIPT statute, N.J.S.A 54:18-1, thus is not entitled to any deference. Its interpretation of the provision in N.J.S.A. 54:18A-2(a) that the FIPT is considered “a part of” the “payable” IPT as requiring the cap to apply in computing the FIPT is unreasonable because, (a) since 1945, this provision has been interpreted to simply mean that the IPT statute requires a credit for the FIPT paid so that a foreign insurer does not pay a tax on fire insurance premiums twice, and (b) it results in plaintiff receiving less than the mandated 2% FIPT on “all of the” fire insurance premiums earned in New Jersey. The cap on premiums for purposes of computing the IPT need not, and should not, be extended in computing the FIPT unless the Legislature acts to amend the respective statutes. Due to this holding, the court did not need to consider plaintiff’s arguments that Taxation’s decision violated the Administrative Procedures Act, or Taxation’s arguments that its Notice, as a public guidance document should be upheld under the temporary validity doctrine until it formally promulgates and finalizes regulations reflecting its changed position as to FIPT computation. The court granted NJSFA’s motion for partial summary judgment, invalidated the Notice, and denied Taxation’s motion for summary judgment. Close Options Imagined v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Per Tax Court Rule R . 8:9, the Appellate Division opinion ( OPTIONS IMAGINED, ETC. VS. PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS TOWNSHIP (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY A-1144-22 , decided April 17, 2024) is published in the Tax Court Reports and is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3 and R . 8:9-3. 010456-2020; 009577-2021; 007910-2022 Published Tax Nov. 1, 2022 Summary 010456-2020; 009577-2021; 007910-2022 Tax Court; Options Imagined v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Township ; Docket Nos. 010456-2020, 09577-2021 and 007910-2022; opinion by Bianco, J.T.C., decided October 31, 2022. For plaintiff – Robert B. McBriar (Schneck, Price, Smith, & King, LLP., attorneys); For defendant – Richard P. DeAngelis (Connell Foley., attorneys). The court held that Options Imagined, a New Jersey nonprofit and Federal § 502 (c) (3) corporation, satisfied the requirements for property tax exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, finding that it was actually used in furtherance of the nonprofit’s charitable purpose, to provide care to mentally disabled adults, where its sole and current resident is the son of the President of the corporation. The court found that Options satisfied the Paper Mill use test because it is opened to the public and serves a public purpose. Close SF III Kinderkamack, LLC v Borough of Oradell 005860-2021 Published Tax Oct. 24, 2022 Summary 005860-2021 Tax Court: SF III Kinderkamack, LLC v Borough of Oradell; Docket Nos. 005860-2021, opinion by Orsen, J.T.C., decided October 21, 2022. For proposed Intervenor – Paul Tannenbaum (Zipp & Tannenbaum, LLC, attorneys); for plaintiff – Michael Ash (Carlin, Ward, Ash & Heiart, LLC, attorneys); and for defendant – Alan Spiniello (Alan Spiniello Law Offices, attorneys). Held: Intervenor, Dabby Bergen Medi Pro, LLC, Sianes Bergen Medi Pro, LLC, YB 690 Kinder, LLC, and Yazam Investments, LLC collectively, sought to be joined as a party to the 2021 property tax appeal filed by plaintiff, SF III Kinderkamack, LLC. Intervenor asserted that the court rules pertaining to the transfer of interest, intervention and joinder were applicable; and standing existed to participate in the case as the new owner of the property. Defendant, Borough of Oradell, opposed the motion and maintained that Intervenor did not have standing because it was not the property owner as of the property tax appeal filing deadline, its claim was not within the statute of limitations and the requirements of the applicable court rules were not met. The court determined that Intervenor met the standards to join due to the transfer of interest of the property per the court rules. Moreover, the court found that Intervenor had standing in its fact-sensitive analysis through multiple factors including the review of its financial interest in the property and responsibility to pay taxes. Intervenor was also not barred by the statute of limitations as no new relief was sought. Accordingly, the court granted Intervenor’s motion to join the case as a party. Close Bloomingdale’s Inc and Bloomingdale’s c/o Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Hackensack City (6 appeals) 006396-2016, 07619-2016, 004282-2017, 006959-2018, 003279-2019, 004117-2020 Published Tax Sept. 29, 2022 Summary 006396-2016, 07619-2016, 004282-2017, 006959-2018, 003279-2019, 004117-2020 Tax Court: Bloomingdale’s, Inc. and Bloomingdale’s c/o Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Hackensack City ; Docket Nos. 006396-2016, 007619-2016, 004282-2017, 006959-2018, 003279-2019, 004117-2020, opinion by Novin, J.T.C., decided August 8, 2022; publication date September 28, 2022. For plaintiff – Gregory S. Schaffer and Adam R. Jones (Garippa, Lotz & Giannuario, P.C., attorneys); for defendant – Kenneth A. Porro (Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, P.C., attorneys). The court concluded that the subject property’s tax assessments should be afforded a presumption of validity because defendant’s tax assessor relied on reasonable available market data and methods in fulfilling his constitutional and statutory obligations. The court found that defendant’s ineligibility to conduct an annual reassessment program, under N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(i), was not singularly dispositive on the issue of whether the local property tax assessments were entitled to a presumption of validity. Rather, the court observed that the inquiry must focus on whether the valuation and local property tax assessments were reasonably related to sound assessment practices, based on reasonable data and information, a sensitivity to changing market conditions, and consideration of physical factors uniquely applicable to the property. The court found that plaintiff offered no evidence that the market data, analysis, and/or methodology relied upon by the defendant’s tax assessor were flawed or arbitrary. Accordingly, the court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that no presumption of validity should attach to the subject property’s tax assessments. Close Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 5 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 97 items
- Published Trial Court Opinions, A "published" opinion is identified as one that sets legal precedence and can be cited in future cases. Start End Search Apply Filters, No Published Trial Court opinions reported for today May 26, 2025, IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PRINCETON, ET AL. L-1550-15/L-1561-15 Published Trial Oct. 22, 2024 Summary L-1550-15/L-1561-15 Following the demise of the Council On Affordable Housing (“COAH”), and at the direction of the Supreme Court in Mt. Laurel IV , 221 N.J. 1 (2015), New Jersey trial courts assumed responsibility for evaluating municipal compliance with the State’s constitutionally mandated affordable housing obligations. Although most municipalities obtained certification of their municipal plans through settlements of declaratory judgment actions, Princeton and West Windsor in Mercer County sought certification from the court, requiring it to determine each town’s fair share of low and moderate housing units for 1999 to 2015 (Gap Present Need) and from 2015 through 2025 (Prospective Need). Their applications for certification were opposed by the Fair Share Housing Center, an affordable housing advocacy group. The parties presented to the trial court competing and very divergent methodologies in support of the number of units each claimed satisfied constitutional requirements. After a lengthy trial, the Mercer County Superior Court issued a decision reviewing the methodologies proposed by both sides and adopting a formula that the court then applied to each town to establish its fair share of low and moderate income housing units for the period 1999 through 2025. In 2024, the New Jersey Legislature subsequently incorporated the court’s formula into the amended Fair Housing Act at N.J.S.A. 52:27D-304.3. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. RAVEL STOKES 21-07-0507 Published Trial May 7, 2024 Summary 21-07-0507 The case at issue arises out of a homicide which was captured on a home surveillance system that took place during daylight hours in the City of Trenton. The suspect can be seen on the video walking down the sidewalk seconds before he/she reaches the victim and shoots him in the head, causing his death. The question presented was whether a proposed expert in the field of digital forensics should be permitted to testify and proffer an opinion at trial regarding the estimated height of the individual captured on the surveillance video based upon the application of a technique called reverse projection photogrammetry. The court held a Rule 104 hearing at which time the State’s proposed expert testified. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the court ruled that the expert’s testimony was admissible pursuant to N.J.R.E 702. In that regard: (1) the subject of the testimony was beyond the ken of the average juror and would assist the trier of fact to understand whether the height of the individual depicted in the video was consistent with the defendant’s height; (2) the expert was duly qualified in the field of digital forensics, including reverse projection photogrammetry; and (3) the expert’s testimony and opinions were reliable because they are “based on a sound, adequately-founded scientific methodology involving data and information of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the field.” State v. Olenowski , ___ N.J. ___ (2023)(slip op. at 8). Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. J.D. 20-09-0475 Published Trial Jan. 10, 2024 Summary 20-09-0475 On September 25, 2020, J.D. plead guilty to two counts of criminal sexual contact in the fourth degree in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b). Shortly thereafter, he was deemed incompetent as a result of an intellectual disability, low-IQ and a lack of formal education—having only completed the 8th grade. Two experts opined that J.D. could attain competency with education, although these opinions were disputed by a third expert. As J.D. was not deemed a danger to himself or to others, he was not subject to incarceration or institutionalization pre-trial. In response to a court order requesting guidance on the type of educational services needed to assist J.D. in attaining competency, it was confirmed that no State program exists to provide educational services on an out-patient basis to assist J.D. with attaining competency. On December 20, 2022, the State moved to have a Guardian appointed to assist J.D. in procuring disability benefits that could defray the cost of private educational services and to otherwise assist J.D. in procuring private educational services necessary to attain competency. On March 15, 2023, in an interlocutory Order and opinion of first impression, this court addressed, among other factors, Constitutional considerations and denied the State’s motion to appoint a Guardian and compel J.D., a criminal defendant, to procure private educational services for the purpose of attaining competency. Following a competency hearing on July 26, 2023, by separate Order and opinion dated August 1, 2023, the court: (i) determined that J.D. was not competent and was not likely to attain competency; (ii) vacated J.D.'s guilty plea; and (iii) dismissed with prejudice the complaint against J.D. Based upon the August 1, 2023 Order, the March 15, 2023 Order is now final. Close E.W. v. W.M-H. FV-07-2446-22 Published Trial Aug. 4, 2023 Summary FV-07-2446-22 The question presented to the trial court was whether the immunity statute relating to DCPP referrals found at N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.13 confers immunity to DCPP referrals made with the intent to harass a victim of domestic violence as defined under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. There was no prior precedent resolving this issue. In harmonizing the two statutes, the trial court found that it would be contrary to legislative intent to confer immunity in the realm of domestic violence as that would permit the weaponization of DCPP referrals as a means of perpetrating domestic violence. This matter arose out of an application for a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. At the conclusion of the trial, the only predicate act surviving was the act of calling DCPP to report allegations of abuse in order to harass the victim. The trial court noted that the Legislature intended to protect children as the primary purpose in enacting the immunity statute regarding DCPP referrals. Additionally, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18 expressly provides that children can suffer emotionally from the exposure to domestic violence, and that children may also be a victim of domestic violence. Thus, the trial court concluded that the application of the DCPP immunity statute to allegations of harassment under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Acts fails as a matter of law under the doctrine of absurdity. Even though the trial court found that the defendant committed the predicate act of harassment by making reports to DCPP, the trial court ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the second prong of Silver v. Silver , 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006), and denied the application for a final restraining order. Close JOSEPH G. COLACITTI, ET AL. v. PHILIP D. MURPHY, ET AL. L-0738-21 Published Trial Jan. 9, 2023 Summary L-0738-21 HELD: L. 2021, c. 17 (Chapter 17), effective February 22, 2021, was enacted to continue the local property tax (LPT) exemption afforded to nonprofit hospitals, and to extend the same exemption to a nonprofit hospital-owned satellite emergency facilities (SECs), even if areas of the hospital and SECs are used by/leased to, for-profit medical providers “for medical purposes related to delivery of health care services directly to the hospital,” provided that such “portion of the hospital . . . is used exclusively for hospital services.” The nonprofit hospitals and SECs should pay an annual community service contribution (ACSC) to the municipality in which the hospital beds of a nonprofit hospital are located or where an SEC is located. Chapter 17 also bars imposing assessments for tax years 2014 through 2020, which would moot those years’ pending tax appeals all filed because of the alleged for-profit activity conducted by the hospital and/or the for-profit medical providers on the nonprofit hospital premises. The law was enacted to mitigate the effects of a 2015 Tax Court decision which revoked the tax exemption of a nonprofit hospital’s property based on facts that the operations/activities of the plaintiff nonprofit hospital and the for-profit, private medical providers on the hospital property were too blurred. The court here found that (1) the ACSC is not an ultra-vires payment-in-lieu of tax program; (2) the ACSC is not a local property tax for purposes of the Uniformity Clause of the New Jersey Constitution; (3) Chapter 17 is facially constitutional and does not violate the Exemption Clause of the New Jersey Constitution; (4) Chapter 17 is not an invalid special legislation, thus also does not facially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the federal and State constitutions; and (5) Chapter 17’s retroactivity is not manifestly unjust, thus, also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the federal and State constitutions. The court further found there are no bases for imposing an injunction against Chapter 17 under any of the factors enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia , 90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1983). The court therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. R.O.-S./STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. C.C. XP-21-0276/XP-21-1767 Published Trial Dec. 12, 2022 Summary XP-21-0276/XP-21-1767 This case raises a question of first impression: whether the recently enacted amendment to the expungement statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, includes violations of local ordinances, which were amended from Title 2C violations. Petitioners, C.C. and R.O.-S. argued that the “clean slate” statute was designed to remove an individual’s entire criminal history and therefore, must include local ordinances that arise from criminal offenses. The State proposed a strict interpretation of the statute, arguing that only convictions from indictable offenses, disorderly persons offenses, and petty disorderly persons offenses are included. This Court concluded that a liberal interpretation of the statute is consistent with the legislative intent. Local ordinances that arise from criminal offenses are unique in that they are accompanied by police and arrest reports, fingerprint cards, “mug shots,” complaint warrants or summonses and most importantly, they are included on an individual’s criminal case history or “RAP” sheet. Absent an expungement of the local ordinance that resulted from the Title 2C offense, Petitioners would be left with a criminal history. Since this is inconsistent with the intent of the “clean slate” statute, the court finds that Petitioner’s convictions are eligible for expungement pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3. Close ATLANTIC PLASTIC & HAND SURGERY, P.A. v. WILLIAM F. RALLING, ET AL. L-3685-20 Published Trial Dec. 9, 2022 Summary L-3685-20 This litigation arises from unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by a twenty-four-year-old who was a named “adult child” dependent on his father’s health insurance policy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-14(a), of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). This opinion addresses two questions of first impression under New Jersey law. First, pursuant to the Statute of Frauds, specifically N.J.S.A. 25:1-15, can a family member’s oral guarantee of payment be enforceable where the promisor has no pecuniary interest? Based on the decades-long thread of pecuniary advantage woven through New Jersey’s leading object exception precedent, the court holds that oral promises supported by familial bonds only – without any pecuniary or economic advantage to the promisor – do not satisfy the leading object exception to the Statute of Frauds. Second, can a parent, who is the insurance policy holder, be held liable for unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by an emancipated child who is a covered “adult child” dependent pursuant to the ACA? Guided by N.J.S.A. 9:17B-3, the court holds that, in the absence of any signed, written guarantee executed by the parent, the parent of an emancipated adult capable of contracting for a provider’s care cannot be deemed liable for unreimbursed medical expenses, even where the “adult dependent” is covered on the parent’s health insurance policy, pursuant to the ACA. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. KELVIN BRIGGS 18-08-0647 Published Trial Sept. 19, 2022 Summary 18-08-0647 In State v. Kelvin Briggs , defendant moved to suppress internet protocol (IP) address data. In support of his motion, defendant argued that IP address data was akin to cell-site location information (CSLI), which is afforded protection by the United States Supreme Court in Carpenter v. U.S. , ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). Further, defendant argued that like CSLI data, IP address data should be considered location data that requires a warrant. This issue is one of first impression in New Jersey. In its decision, the court distinguished between IP address data and CSLI and held that IP address data should not be afforded the same protections as CSLI. More specifically, the court observed that IP address data does not generate the same privacy concerns enunciated in Carpenter . Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress was denied. Close KRATOVIL V. ANGELSON AND RUTGERS L-1254-18 Published Trial Aug. 18, 2022 Summary L-1254-18 Based on a close analysis of the statutory language and legislative history, the trial court held that the New Jersey First Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14-7, did not apply to unpaid volunteers serving on government boards. Specifically, the court found that four volunteer members of the Rutgers University Board of Governors who lived outside the State of New Jersey were not subject to the Act and thus would not be removed from the Board based on their out-of-state residence as sought by plaintiff. In the alternative, the court found that if the New Jersey First Act were applied to volunteer members of the Rutgers Board of Governors residing outside of New Jersey, such an application of the Act would violate the Contract Clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions as being inconsistent with the Rutgers Charter, which requires University consent before legislative changes to the governance of the University are enacted. Close IMO THE ESTATE OF F.W.K., JR., ET AL. V. M.A.-V. L-2625-21 Published Trial Aug. 17, 2022 Summary L-2625-21 Plaintiff Estate brought a preemptive action seeking to enjoin defendant, M.A.-V., from filing a sexual abuse complaint using decedent’s actual name rather than initials. Defendant had provided to the Estate’s executors a copy of a proposed complaint that contained specific allegations of sexual abuse alleged to have been committed by decedent against defendant in 1988, when defendant was thirteen years old. Plaintiff argued the statute governing Actions for Sexual Abuse, N.J.S.A. 2A:61B-1, section (f)(1), was intended to protect confidentiality of alleged perpetrators as well as victims. To obtain the injunction plaintiff would have to satisfy the four-part test of Crowe v. De Gioia , 90 N.J. 126 (1992). The court held plaintiff could not satisfy the second prong, that "the legal rights underlying plaintiff’s claim are well-settled." The court ruled the issue of whether the Sexual Abuse statute afforded a sexual abuse defendant the right to demand confidentiality had been decided in T.S.R. v. J.C. , 288 N.J. Super. 48, 53 (App. Div. 1996) ("[T]he statute grants only the plaintiff-victim the option of refusing to disclose identifying information."). Close IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF G.C. MECC-0368-21 Published Trial Aug. 5, 2022 Summary MECC-0368-21 A psychiatric hospital can involuntarily hold a patient for up to twenty-four hours for screening and up to an additional seventy-two hours to make an emergent application to the court to continue involuntary psychiatric commitment. The issue raised here is when the law starts counting the time. To decide the issue the court had to address the role of the County Adjuster and the Public Defender. These are new issues. This opinion addresses the legal framework as to how to work through the issues and decide whether to issue an order for involuntary commitment. In this case, the court decided that admission to a hospital was not the same as being held involuntarily and that the procedures followed by the hospital were proper. So, the involuntary commitment was granted. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. HINDRAJ L. BALANI MA-13-2019 Published Trial July 19, 2022 Summary MA-13-2019 The municipal court found the defendant guilty of violating N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.32(a), a regulation enacted under the Uniform Construction Code Act that prohibits unsafe structures. The municipal court then ordered his building demolished. The defendant appealed to the Law Division, which on de novo review found that the municipal court lacked the authority to order the building’s demolition. The Law Division then dismissed the complaint after finding that the municipality failed to follow the procedures that would have allowed the municipal court to impose a fine. Close YONY LIRIANO, JR. V. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY L-5379-20 Published Trial July 11, 2022 Summary L-5379-20 In Liriano v. Liberty Mutual insurance Company , (Docket Essex L-5379-20), the court found that the plaintiff was barred by the entire controversy doctrine from asserting a claim for underinsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff had previously brought a lawsuit in another county naming the same defendant and based on the same accident and the same policy of insurance. In the earlier suit, which resulted in entry of a final judgment, plaintiff had made a claim for uninsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff had become aware during the pendency of the earlier suit that the tortfeasor was underinsured, not uninsured. The court found in the circumstances of this case, that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Close RAVENSCROFT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., V. GALINA DERROISNE, ET AL. DC-002519-20 Published Trial July 11, 2022 Summary DC-002519-20 Plaintiff moved to accept service by mail as good service in a Special Civil Part case based on electronic tracking information. The markings on the mail piece did not indicate good service. The court found that the law requires reference to the mail piece over the electronic tracking information and denied the motion. Close M.K. v. T.K. FM-13-0477-16 Published Trial June 29, 2022 Summary FM-13-0477-16 This matter concerns the right of a foreign country to modify a child support order entered in New York and subsequently registered in New Jersey. The parties, who had three children together, were divorced in New York in 2011. At the time, they entered into a marital settlement agreement which required Plaintiff to pay Defendant child support in the amount of $1,700 per month. Defendant and the children moved to New Jersey in 2012 and the parties later consented to the registration of the foreign divorce in New Jersey. Defendant and the children have lived in New Jersey continuously since that time. Plaintiff was deported to Ireland in 2014. While there, the Probation Division commenced proceedings for the international enforcement of Plaintiff’s child support obligation. In response to this enforcement action, Ireland entered an order reducing Plaintiff’s child support obligation. Plaintiff eventually returned to the United States. Defendant sought to enforce the original child support obligation and argued that Plaintiff owed her the balance between what he was required to pay under the original support order and what he actually paid pursuant to the Ireland order. Conversely, Plaintiff argued that the Ireland order was binding, his future support obligation should be the amount established by the Ireland court and he did not owe Defendant any arrears. The court first determined which treaty governing the international enforcement of child support orders applied: The United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, New York, 1956 (1956 UN Convention) or The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Hague Convention). The court concluded that the Ireland court inappropriately applied the 1956 UN Convention, because the United States was never a signatory to this treaty. The court then determined that it was the Hague Convention that was binding on the two nations, since both Ireland and the United States were signatories to that treaty at the time the Ireland order was entered. The Court next analyzed the provisions of the Hague Convention and its implementing legislation, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), to ascertain those circumstances where a receiving country may modify a support order. It concluded that Ireland did not have the authority to modify the support order in this case, where Defendant and the children have lived in New Jersey since 2012. The court further concluded that, under UIFSA, the original child support order is the "controlling order" since Defendant and the children continuously resided in New Jersey, making New Jersey the children’s “home state” and because both parties consented to jurisdiction in New Jersey, even when Plaintiff was residing in Ireland. Accordingly, the court held that Ireland did not have the authority to modify the original child support order and that Plaintiff owed the amounts that had accrued since the Ireland order was entered. Close K.A. v. F.A FM-13-0901-13 Published Trial June 23, 2022 Summary FM-13-0901-13 This post-judgment dissolution case concerns a question of first impression: may a child support obligation be modified retroactively prior to the date of application where the substantial, permanent change in circumstances is an adult adoption that terminated the obligor’s parental rights. The parties are divorced and share three children. For the relevant time period, the child support obligation was allocated for the oldest child, but unallocated for the two other children. In 2018 – after their respective eighteenth birthdays – the two oldest children were adopted by their stepfather. Although the parties agree that the adoptions qualify as a change in circumstances warranting a modification to child support for the third child, they dispute whether the modification can be retroactive to the date of the adoption, as opposed to the date of application. N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a generally prohibits retroactive modifications of child support prior to the date of application. Caselaw, however, established limited exceptions to the statute’s general prohibition, including emancipation. The limited emancipation exception is based on the underlying premise that on emancipation, any duty of support is extinguished. Based on the similarities between emancipation and adult adoption, most noteworthy being that by requesting an adult adoption the child has removed him- or herself from the parental sphere of influence thereby extinguishing any duty of support, the court holds that N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a does not bar termination or modification of child support retroactive to the date of the supported child’s adult adoption. Close IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF W.S. FA-01-0058-16 Published Trial Feb. 25, 2022 Summary FA-01-0058-16 In this adoption matter, the court examined whether a minor child, W.S., who was born in Mexico, is considered a "habitual resident" of the United States at the time of her adoption in order to comply with the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention). Petitioner, S.S., sought to amend a Final Judgment of Adoption that was entered on December 21, 2016, to reflect that the adoption of W.S. was in compliance with the Hague Adoption Convention which will resolve W.S.’s immigration status and allow W.S. to return to the United States. The court’s opinion highlighted the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Monasky v. Taglieri , 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020), which directly addressed the definition of "habitual residence" under the Hague Adoption Convention. In accordance with the new guidance set forth in the Monasky decision, the court concluded that W.S. was a "habitual resident" of the United States, not Mexico, at the time of her adoption on December 21, 2016, and held that the adoption complied with the requirements of the Hague Adoption Convention. Close IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A CHILD BY G.A.S. FA-01-0020-21 Published Trial Feb. 18, 2022 Summary FA-01-0020-21 In this opinion, the court examined the newly enacted legislative changes in the Legal Parentage Act, N.J.S.A. 9:17-69 to -71, which created a streamlined process for same-sex couples to obtain a co-parent adoption. Petitioners G.A.S. and M.A.S., a same-sex couple, sought a Judgment of Adoption pursuant to the streamlined procedures under the Legal Parentage Act and for the Atlantic County Surrogate’s Court to process the family’s adoption complaint without requiring background checks and a home study. The court’s opinion highlighted the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Order issued on May 26, 2020, and the Notice to the Bar issued on June 4, 2020, by the Administrative Office of the Courts, which outlined the streamlined process of establishing the legal parentage of a non-biological parent under the new statute. The Court concluded that Petitioners satisfied all three requirements under N.J.S.A. 9:17-71(b), and the court entered a Judgment of Adoption. Close J.R. V. A.R. FD-13-0728-20 Published Trial Feb. 15, 2022 Summary FD-13-0728-20 This non-dissolution case concerns a question of first impression in New Jersey regarding a threshold inquiry to the application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("Convention"). Specifically, this case addresses whether accession by the child’s country of habitual residence mandates application of the Convention where the United States has not yet accepted that accession. In early 2020, A.R. and the child left the Philippines—the child’s country of habitual residence—for the United States. J.R. filed an application seeking the child’s return pursuant to the Convention. Although the United States’ status as a Contracting State to the Convention was patent, the Philippines did not accede to the Convention until March 2016. The United States has not accepted that accession. Articles 35 and 38 of the Convention collectively provide that for a non-Contracting State that accedes to the Convention, such "accession will have effect only" where the other country has "declared their acceptance of the accession." Based on the clear, express, and unambiguous language of Articles 35 and 38, analogous federal and state precedent, and scholarly consensus, the court holds that where the United States has not accepted another country’s accession to the Convention in accordance with Articles 35 and 38, the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Convention’s prompt return protocols. Close STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. J.T. FO-03-0454-20 Published Trial Feb. 1, 2022 Summary FO-03-0454-20 On January 24, 2020, defendant ordered a floral arrangement that was to be delivered to his former girlfriend on February 13, 2020. One week after the order was placed, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was entered against defendant, prohibiting him from having contact with his former girlfriend. Defendant made no effort to cancel the delivery, which did not occur until after the entry and service of the TRO on defendant. Defendant was charged with contempt for violation of a TRO entered pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. Following trial, it was determined that the State was not able to satisfy its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant "purposely or knowingly" violated the TRO, and the complaint was dismissed. Since the TRO had not yet been entered at the time the defendant ordered the flowers, he could not have possessed the requisite mental state for a finding of contempt. Similarly, the argument that defendant had an affirmative obligation to recall the communication initiated prior to his having been served with the TRO was rejected, because the TRO provided no notice of any such requirement. Close Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 4 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 73 items
- Supreme Court Opinions, Use the search tool or list of recent options. Start End Search Apply Filters, No Supreme Court opinion reported for today May 26, 2025, In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (083396)(Statewide) A-61/62-19 Supreme May 22, 2025 Oral Argument A-61/62-19 A-61/62-19 Part 1 (11/10/2020) Audio for A-61/62-19 Part 1 (11/10/2020) A-61/62-19 Part 2 (11/10/2020) Audio for A-61/62-19 Part 2 (11/10/2020) A-61/62-19 Part 1 (09/24/2024) Audio for A-61/62-19 Part 1 (09/24/2024) Close Summary A-61/62-19 The practice of purchasing a competitor’s name as a keyword does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the RPCs. However, the Court requires that attorneys employing this strategy include a clear and conspicuous disclaimer on the landing page of their website when a user clicks on such a paid advertisement. 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 State v. John T. Bragg (089446) (Mercer County and Statewide) A-13-24 Supreme May 6, 2025 Oral Argument A-13-24 A-13-24 Audio for A-13-24 Close Summary A-13-24 Whether defendant should have retreated was a critical part of certain offenses charged in this case. Jurors heard the State press the point at trial; they also heard conflicting accounts of who the “initial aggressor” was and whether the apartment was defendant’s “dwelling.” But the jury received no direction as to how those disputed facts related to -- or had the potential to negate -- the duty to retreat in this case. Under the circumstances, the failure to give the jury guidance on the castle doctrine was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. It was therefore plain error not to instruct the jury on the issue. Close In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638 (090076) (Statewide) A-33-24 Supreme May 5, 2025 Oral Argument A-33-24 A-33-24 Audio for A-33-24 Close Summary A-33-24 Because of the defect in Liberty’s PoA, El Sol did not submit a CoS that validly bound Liberty to execute the Contract Bond, and its bid was therefore incomplete. The NJTA did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable manner when it rejected El Sol’s legally deficient bid. Close In re Appeal of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s September 6, 2022 Denial of Request for Adjudicatory Hearing (089182)(Statewide) A-42-23 Supreme April 7, 2025 Oral Argument A-42-23 A-42-23 Audio for A-42-23 Close Summary A-42-23 The DEP’s initial grant of the waiver did not create a property interest in the continued suspension of Clarios’s remediation obligations. Neither the controlling statutes and regulations nor a mutually explicit understanding between the parties provided an entitlement to the indefinite continuance of the waiver; to the contrary, the governing laws and agency materials all anticipate the DEP’s ability to enforce remediation obligations in the future. Close Laurence J. Rappaport v. Kenneth Pasternak (088645) (Bergen County & Statewide) A-32-23 Supreme April 1, 2025 Oral Argument A-32-23 A-32-23 Audio for A-32-23 Close Summary A-32-23 The Court disagrees with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that it was the arbitrator, not the parties, who introduced the question of carried interest in the arbitration. The remedy of modification under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a)(2) is not warranted in this case, and the Appellate Division’s review of the award did not conform to the deferential standard governing judicial review of arbitration awards Close Rosalyn Musker v. Suuchi, Inc. (089665) (Bergen County & Statewide) A-8-24 Supreme March 17, 2025 Oral Argument A-8-24 A-8-24 Audio for A-8-24 Close Summary A-8-24 The WPL defines “wages” as “direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or commission basis.” N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1(c) (emphasis added). Under that definition, compensating an employee by paying a “commission” for “labor or services” always constitutes a wage under the WPL. Therefore, a “commission” under the WPL cannot be excluded from the definition of “wages” as a “supplementary incentive.” Close Estate of Crystal Walcott Spill v. Jacob E. Markovitz, M.D. (088764) (Bergen County & Statewide) A-34-23 Supreme March 11, 2025 Oral Argument A-34-23 A-34-23 Audio for A-34-23 Close Summary A-34-23 An individual outside the reach of New Jersey’s jurisdiction is not a party within the definition of the CNA for purposes of allocation. But that individual may be a joint tortfeasor for purposes of seeking contribution under the JTCL. The Court therefore affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division, as modified. Close In the Matter of R. Douglas Hoffman (089279) D-90-23 Supreme March 10, 2025 Oral Argument D-90-23 D-90-23 Audio for D-90-23 Close Summary D-90-23 The Court’s review of the record reveals that Respondent invited a subordinate court employee to his summer home, provided beer and shots of hard liquor that the two drank liberally over the course of several hours, discussed intimate details of the employee’s sexual relationship with her boyfriend, and then touched her in a sexually suggestive manner without her consent. Because of the blatant and serious nature of Respondent’s misconduct, the Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that there is cause for removal. Close In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (089278) (Statewide) A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23 Supreme Feb. 18, 2025 Oral Argument A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23 A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23 Audio for A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23 Close Summary A-44/45/46/47/48/49/50/51/52-23 The Court Rules allow certified attorneys to pay referral fees to lawyers in other states even if they are not licensed here, and the payment of referral fees does not raise concerns about the unauthorized practice of law. The Court vacates Opinion 745, which reached the opposite conclusion. Close D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia (088966) (Atlantic County and Statewide) A-35-23 Supreme Feb. 4, 2025 Oral Argument A-35-23 A-35-23 Audio for A-35-23 Close Summary A-35-23 D.T. has not demonstrated that the Archdiocese’s exercise of supervisory authority over McCarthy gave rise to the minimum contacts between the Archdiocese and New Jersey that would be necessary to exercise specific jurisdiction under Fourteenth Amendment due process principles in the setting of this appeal Close In the Matter of the Estate of Michael D. Jones, Deceased (088877) (Camden County and Statewide) A-28-23 Supreme Jan. 27, 2025 Oral Argument A-28-23 A-28-23 Audio for A-28-23 Close Summary A-28-23 Preemption is not an issue here because the N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 does not conflict with the federal regulations that govern U.S. savings bonds. Given that the DSA did not direct the disposition of the savings bonds, the bonds have no bearing on Michael’s -- and later the Estate’s -- obligation to pay Jeanine $200,000, and the bonds’ value should not have been credited against that obligation. Pursuant to the DSA, the Estate must make whatever payments remain to Jeanine. Close Earneka Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health (089441) (Union County and Statewide) A-43-23 Supreme Jan. 22, 2025 Oral Argument A-43-23 A-43-23 Part-1 Audio for A-43-23 Part-1 A-43-23 Part-2 Audio for A-43-23 Part-2 Close Summary A-43-23 When a defending physician practices in more than one specialty and the treatment involved falls within any of that physician’s specialty areas, then an AOM from a physician specializing in one of those specialties is sufficient. Close Antonio Fuster v. Township of Chatham (089030) (Morris County and Statewide) A-33-23 Supreme Jan. 21, 2025 Oral Argument A-33-23 A-33-23 Audio for A-33-23 Close Summary A-33-23 Subsection (k) of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 does not permit plaintiffs to review the video in this case because Fuster has already requested that the video be retained for three years and Devine is neither the subject of the video nor one of the other specified persons entitled to review. The Court does not decide whether subsection (l) of the BWCL abrogates OPRA’s exemptions because there is no OPRA exemption that supports defendants’ refusal to release the video in this case. OPRA does not contain any explicit exemption for information received by law enforcement regarding an individual who was not arrested or charged. Neither has New Jersey case law ever held that such information must automatically be withheld under OPRA. The Court therefore reverses the Appellate Division’s judgment and orders that the body worn camera footage be released to plaintiffs under the circumstances of this case, without reaching plaintiffs’ common law claims. Close Linda B. Brehme v. Thomas Irwin (089025) (Bergen County and Statewide) A-40-23 Supreme Jan. 15, 2025 Oral Argument A-40-23 A-40-23-Part 1 Audio for A-40-23-Part 1 A-40-23-Part 2 Audio for A-40-23-Part 2 Close Summary A-40-23 When a plaintiff accepts a final judgment, that party may still appeal if the party can show that (1) it made known its intention to appeal prior to accepting payment of the final judgment and prior to executing the warrant to satisfy judgment, and (2) prevailing on the appellate issue will not in any way impact the final judgment other than to potentially increase it. Because Brehme cannot show either that she expressed her intention to appeal before accepting payment of the final judgment and before her counsel executed the warrant to satisfy the judgment or that the appeal will not impact the final judgment other than to increase it, Brehme’s appeal cannot proceed. For that reason, no decision rendered can affect the outcome of the case, and her appeal was properly dismissed as moot. Close State v. Celestine Payne (088925) (Passaic County and Statewide) A-25-23 Supreme Jan. 13, 2025 Oral Argument A-25-23 A-25-23-Part 1 Audio for A-25-23-Part 1 A-25-23-Part 2 Audio for A-25-23-Part 2 Close Summary A-25-23 The trial court’s finding that Celestine’s crimes were extraordinarily heinous, cruel, and depraved was supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the trial court’s application of extraordinary aggravating factor one was not an abuse of discretion. In addition, in denying Celestine’s petition for compassionate release, the trial court appropriately considered significant mitigating factors raised by Celestine alongside the extraordinary aggravating factors raised by the State. Close 257-261 20th Avenue Realty, LLC v. Alessandro Roberto, et al. (088959) (Passaic County and Statewide) A-29-23 Supreme Jan. 9, 2025 Oral Argument A-29-23 A-29-23 Audio for A-29-23 Close Summary A-29-23 The applicable version of the TSL in this case is unconstitutional to the extent it allows for the forfeiture of surplus equity without just compensation. New Jersey recognizes a property right to surplus equity in real property, and because private lienholders act jointly with local government under the TSL to perform a traditional public function -- the collection of taxes -- they may be considered state actors. The Court rejects the argument that the surplus equity initially foreclosed in this case was not taken for a public use. The Court affirms as modified the judgment of the Appellate Division based on the reasoning in Tyler; it does not rely on Rule 4:50-1(f). Close State v. Fuquan K. Knight; State v. Shaquan K. Knight (088970) (Essex County and Statewide) A-37/38-23 Supreme Dec. 18, 2024 Oral Argument A-37/38-23 A-37/38-23 Audio for A-37/38-23 Close Summary A-37/38-23 The Appellate Division’s judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Sabatino’s opinion. The Court concurs with the Appellate Division’s guidance and list of non-exclusive factors for trial courts to consider in exercising their discretion, although the Court notes that the concerns raised in the study about intentionality cited by defendants would need to be tested under the standard articulated in State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023). The Court also agrees with the recommendation that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge regarding jury requests to replay video evidence. The Court offers additional comments on why watching a video in slow motion is not beyond the ken of an average juror, and why playing the difficult-to-perceive recording here in slow motion to assist the jury was not an alteration or distortion of the video. Close Dionicio Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC (089044) (Union County and Statewide) A-39-23 Supreme Dec. 12, 2024 Oral Argument A-39-23 A-39-23 Audio for A-39-23 Close Summary A-39-23 Here, Hartford has no duty to defend the employer. The employee’s allegations of simple negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness (the negligence-based claims), which are subject to the workers’ compensation exclusivity bar, are not covered under Part One of the insurance policy and are excluded from coverage under Part Two of the policy. Additionally, the employee’s allegations of intentional wrongdoing are excluded under the policy. Close IMO A.D., an Alleged Incapacitated Person (088942) (Sussex County and Statewide) A-30/31-23 Supreme Dec. 11, 2024 Oral Argument A-30/31-23 A-30/31-23 Audio for A-30/31-23 Close Summary A-30/31-23 There is no support in the governing statutes, the court rules, or New Jersey case law for the fee awards sought in this appeal. The trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the fee applications, and the Appellate Division ruled correctly when it affirmed the trial court’s determination. Close Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 38 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 752 items
- Unpublished Appellate Court Opinions, Appellate opinions are posted at 10 a.m. each day. An "unpublished" opinion is identified as one that does not set a legal precedent and should not be cited in future cases. Start End Search Apply Filters, No Unpublished Appellate Court opinions reported for today May 26, 2025, N.A.M. VS. A.M. (FV-07-2205-24, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2981-23 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 DAVID B. WILSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF NEWARK, ET AL. (L-2081-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1709-23 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BLAKE A. PUPO (18-05-0161, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2197-23 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VS. TEAM RHODI, LLC (L-4592-18, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3518-23 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARCUS O. MORRISEY, ET AL. (19-02-0280, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-3616-22/A-3927-22 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 DOMINICK DIMINNI VS. SEASIDE HEIGHTS PLANNING BOARD, ET AL. (L-1062-23, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2859-23 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROGER E. MEJIA (23-12-0299, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0823-24 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 SVATOPLUK VACLAVIK, ET AL. VS. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH AT PASCACK VALLEY, ET AL. (L-3415-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2765-23 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 BOUAZZA OUAZIZ VS. NOURA EL GHAZOINI (FM-09-0618-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1892-23 Unpublished Appellate May 23, 2025 JOYCE ROMINE, ET AL. VS. ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP, ET AL. (L-2224-23, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2425-23 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. S.B. (14-03-0417, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3508-22 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEVIN L. BETHEA (17-11-1326, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2520-22 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KING H. JOHNSON (24-02-0054, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1262-24 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 EMILY MARTIN VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) A-2451-23 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 S.P. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES) A-2186-23 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 CAROLYN J. WALDVOGEL VS. WALMART, INC., ET AL. (L-6576-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2926-23 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEROME L. GAYDEN (21-20-0676, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3940-23 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FARIYD A. GEORGE (22-06-1428, 23-09-1764 AND 23-09-1765, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2668-23 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 DONNA TAFRO VS. JOSEPH TAFRO (FM-14-0067-20, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2744-23 Unpublished Appellate May 22, 2025 K.M.B. VS. T.V.C. (FV-20-0243-24, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1598-23 Unpublished Appellate May 21, 2025 Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 924 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 18473 items
- Unpublished Tax Court Opinions, Tax Court opinions are posted at 10 a.m. each business day. An "unpublished" opinions is identified as one that does not set a legal precedent and should not be cited in future cases. Start End Search Apply Filters, No Unpublished Tax Court opinions reported for today May 26, 2025, The Arc/Mercer, Inc. v Director, Division of Taxation 07970-2024 Unpublished Tax May 9, 2025 James Patyrak and N.Y. Thymes & Deli, Inc., v. Director, Division of Taxation 013546-2016 Unpublished Tax May 8, 2025 West Broadway Realty, LLC v. Paterson City 006902-2020, 002698-2021, 000288-2022, 000075-2023, 000486-2024 Unpublished Tax April 23, 2025 TOWNSHIP OF ALEXANDRIA V LATTER HOUSE OF GLORY, INC; LATTER HOUSE OF GLORY, INC V TOWNSHIP OF ALEXANDRIA 008302-2022; 007294-2023 Unpublished Tax April 1, 2025 William E. Dolan v. Borough of Woodcliff Lake and BMW of North America, LLC 006933-2014; 008634-2015; 005134-2016; 004908-2017; 006265-2018; 007570-2019; 008551-2020 Unpublished Tax March 21, 2025 RE SO Landco LLC v Township of West Deptford 000026-2020 Unpublished Tax March 17, 2025 Rosenblum, Jesse v. Closter Borough and Miele, Joseph & Gloria 013409-2020 Unpublished Tax March 7, 2025 Colt Arms Preservation Urban Renewal, L.P. v. Paterson City 007403-2024 Unpublished Tax Feb. 21, 2025 42 Broadway LLC v. Paterson City 000062-2023; 000063-2023 Unpublished Tax Feb. 10, 2025 Madison Bulldog Leasing Co. c/o Regan Co. v. Paterson City 007271-2021, 005248-2022, 005150-2023, and 001389-2024 Unpublished Tax Feb. 3, 2025 EDDIE’S LIQUORS, INC. AND HERIBERTO AZCONA v DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION 011441-2021 Unpublished Tax Dec. 11, 2024 INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., V CITY OF WOODBURY 005599-2024; 004051-2023; 008044-2022 Unpublished Tax Nov. 21, 2024 INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. v. CITY OF WOODBURY 005599-2024; 004051-2023; 008044-2022 Unpublished Tax Nov. 21, 2024 Omari, Omar v. Paterson City 010801-2021; 008234-2022; 009927-2023 Unpublished Tax Oct. 11, 2024 Tyler DePina and Dina DePina v. Dir., Div. of Taxation 010254-2023 Unpublished Tax Sept. 16, 2024 103 Park Assoc LLC c/o River Co v. Montclair Township 008196-2021; 006183-2023 Unpublished Tax Aug. 2, 2024 City of Jersey City v. 575 Pavonia, LLC 008090-2020 Unpublished Tax July 19, 2024 GREGORY GRISHAYEV, MICHAEL TOLMACH AND EONSMOKE, LLC, V DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION 006926-2022 Unpublished Tax June 28, 2024 Twin Lakes Realty, LLC v. Township of Aberdeen 002975-2018; 007352-2019; 009610-2020; 008256-2021 Unpublished Tax June 17, 2024 Yang, Daniel & Lucy v. Montclair Twp. 001830-2023 Unpublished Tax June 14, 2024 Pagination 1 Go to page 2 2 Go to page 3 3 Go to last page 17 Last page Go to next page > Next page Showing 1 to 20 of 338 items