Search | NJ Courts

Appellate Criminal Case Information Statement CN: 10501
Municipal Job Information, Job Title: Deputy Court Administrator Vicinage: Burlington Municipal Court: Mansfield/Springfield/Southampton Municipal Court Closing: Sept. 10, 2025 Posted: Aug. 19, 2025
Press Release, News Release, STUART RABNER Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court PETER McALEER MARYANN SPOTO Office of Communications 609-815-2910 RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX • P.O. BOX 037 • TRENTON, NJ 08625-0984 RELEASE DATE: Aug. 19, 2025, ACJC Answer – In the Matter of Britt J. Simon, Judge of the Municipal Court, An answer has been filed in response to a complaint in In the Matter of Britt J. Simon, Judge of the Municipal Court . A formal complaint was filed in the matter by the Advisory Committee on Judicial conduct on July 28. A hearing will be held in accordance with the “Rules Governing the State of New Jersey, Rule 2:15 Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct,” available at njcourts.gov . ###
Deputy Court Administrator - Mansfield/Springfield/Southampton
PHILIP DATTOLO VS. EMC SQUARED, LLC, ET AL. (L-0369-20, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0067-24 Appellate Aug. 20, 2025
KEVIN MORAN, C/O SEA POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ETC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) A-0804-23 Appellate Aug. 20, 2025
ALINA MYRONOVA VS. SURENDER MALHAN, ET AL. (FM-02-0339-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2156-21/A-2787-21 Appellate Aug. 20, 2025
GREENE STREET FUNDING TRUST II VS. 203 HANSBURY LLC, ET AL. (F-008749-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2791-23 Appellate Aug. 20, 2025
a0067-24.pdf
a0804-23.pdf
a2156-21a2787-21.pdf
a2791-23.pdf
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SAMANTHA E. BONORA (24-04-0392, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1602-24 Appellate Aug. 19, 2025
a1602-24.pdf
This notice promulgates revised versions of three Rules Appendices necessitated by earlier rule amendments. The three appendices are (a) Appendix IV (Appellate Division Notice of Appeal) (CN 10502), (b) Appendix VII (Appellate Division Civil Case Information Statement (Civil CIS)) (CN 10500), and ( c) Appendix VIII (Appellate Division Criminal Case Information Statement (Criminal CIS)) (CN 10501). The changes, as detailed below, are solely to update cross-references in the three forms to various rule provisions that were renumbered as part of earlier rule amendments. The revised forms (with the updated cross-reference citations) are effective September 1, 2025. The revisions to the three Rules Appendices, as reflected in the attached revised forms (which also are posted on the Judiciary website), are as follows: In Appendix IV (Notice of Appeal) , in box # 11, changed the reference to Rule 2:5-l(a), (d), or (g) to Rule 2:5-l(b)(4). In Appendix VII (App. Div. Civil CIS) , in box #7, changed the reference to Rule 2:5-l(g) to Rule 2:5-l(b)(4); and in box #10, changed the two references to Rule 2:5-l(b) to Rule 2:5-l(d). In Appendix VIII (App. Div. Criminal CIS) , in box #7, changed the reference to Rule 2:5-l(g) to Rule 2:5-l(b)(4); and in box #13, changed the two references to Rule 2:5-l(b) to Rule 2:5-l(d). Questions regarding this notice may be directed to the Appellate Division Clerk's Office at 609-815-2950. Document Date: Aug. 18, 2025 Publish Date: Aug. 20, 2025 Download Notice
File Notice – Appellate Division – Conforming Amendments to Rules Appendices IV (App. Div. Notice of Appeal), VII (App. Div. Civil Case Information Statement), and VIII (App. Div. Criminal Case Information Statement)
3:22-6-Indigents; Waiver of Fees; Assignment of Counsel, and Grant of Transcript; Assigned Counsel May Not Withdraw 3:22-6, Waiver of Fees; Assignment on First Petition., At the time of filing of a petition under this Rule, a defendant who wants to be represented by the Office of the Public Defender may annex thereto a sworn statement alleging indigency in the form prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts, which form shall be furnished to the defendant by the criminal division manager's office. The criminal division manager's office shall determine whether the defendant is indigent and screen the petition to determine whether the petition is cognizable under R. 3:22-2 and, if so, whether the requirements of R. 3:22-8 have been met. The Criminal Division Manager shall thereafter forthwith submit the same to the Criminal Presiding Judge who, if satisfied therefrom that the defendant is indigent shall order the criminal division manager's office to file the petition without payment of filing fees. At the same time, and without separate petition therefor, if the petition is the first one filed by the defendant attacking the conviction pursuant to this rule, the court shall as of course, unless defendant affirmatively states an intention to proceed pro se, by order assign the matter to the Office of the Public Defender if the defendant's conviction was for an indictable offense, or assign counsel in accordance with R. 3:4-2 if the defendant's conviction was for a non-indictable offense. All orders of assignment pursuant to this section shall contain the name of the judge to whom the case is assigned and shall set a place and date for a case management conference. If the petition is not cognizable under R. 3:22-2, or if the petition does not meet the requirements of R. 3:22-8, the court shall set forth the reasons that the petition is not cognizable under R. 3:22-2, or fails to meet the requirements of R. 3:22-8., Assignment of Counsel on Cause Shown., Upon any second or subsequent petition filed pursuant to this Rule attacking the same conviction, the matter shall be assigned to the Office of the Public Defender only upon application therefor and showing of good cause. For purposes of this section, good cause exists only when the court finds that a substantial issue of fact or law requires assignment of counsel and when a second or subsequent petition alleges on its face a basis to preclude dismissal under R. 3:22-4. , Transcript., After assignment of counsel, or if the indigent defendant proceeds without counsel, the court may grant an application for the transcript of testimony of any proceeding shown to be necessary in establishing the grounds of relief asserted. , Substitution; Withdrawal of Assigned Counsel., The court shall not substitute new assigned counsel at the request of defendant while assigned counsel is serving, except upon a showing of good cause and notice to the Office of the Public Defender. Assigned counsel may not seek to withdraw on the ground of lack of merit of the petition. Counsel should advance all of the legitimate arguments requested by the defendant that the record will support. If defendant insists upon the assertion of any grounds for relief that counsel deems to be without merit, counsel shall list such claims in the petition or amended petition or incorporate them by reference. Pro se briefs can also be submitted. Note: Source -- R.R. 3:10A-6(a) (b) (c) (d). Paragraph (b) amended July 14, 1972 to be effective September 5, 1972; paragraphs (a) and (d) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective January 1, 1995; paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) amended July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009. Part 3
3:22-12-Limitations 3:22-12, General Time Limitations., , First Petition For Post-Conviction Relief., Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this rule, no petition shall be filed pursuant to this rule more than 5 years after the date of entry pursuant to Rule 3:21-5 of the judgment of conviction that is being challenged unless: it alleges facts showing that the delay beyond said time was due to defendant's excusable neglect and that there is a reasonable probability that if the defendant's factual assertions were found to be true enforcement of the time bar would result in a fundamental injustice; or it alleges a claim for relief as set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(A) or paragraph (a)(2)(B) of this rule and is filed within the one-year period set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this rule., Second or Subsequent Petition for Post-Conviction Relief., Notwithstanding any other provision in this rule, no second or subsequent petition shall be filed more than one year after the latest of: the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the United States Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of New Jersey, if that right has been newly recognized by either of those Courts and made retroactive by either of those Courts to cases on collateral review; or the date on which the factual predicate for the relief sought was discovered, if that factual predicate could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence; or the date of the denial of the first or subsequent application for post-conviction relief where ineffective assistance of counsel that represented the defendant on the first or subsequent application for post-conviction relief is being alleged., Dismissal Without Prejudice When Direct Appeal Is Pending., A petition dismissed without prejudice pursuant to R. 3:22-6A(2) because a direct appeal, including a petition for certification, is pending, shall be treated as a first petition for purposes of these rules if refiled within 90 days of the date of the judgment on direct appeal, including consideration of a petition for certification, or within five years after the date of the entry pursuant to Rule 3:21-5 of the judgment of conviction that is being challenged., Dismissal Without Prejudice As Not Cognizable or For Insufficient Verification or Contents., A petition dismissed pursuant to R. 3:22-6A(3) without prejudice as not cognizable under R. 3:22-2, or for failing to meet the requirements of R. 3:22-8, shall be treated as a first petition for purposes of these rules if amended and refiled within 90 days after the date of dismissal, or within five years after the date of the entry pursuant to Rule 3:21-5 of the judgment of conviction that is being challenged. These time limitations shall not be relaxed, except as provided herein. Note: Source -- R.R. 3:10A-13. Caption added and text designated as paragraph (a), and new paragraph (b) added July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; paragraph (a) amended and new paragraph (c) adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009; former paragraph (a) amended and allocated into subparagraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4), captions adopted for subparagraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4), and new subparagraph (a)(2) caption and text adopted January 14, 2010 to be effective February 1, 2010; paragraph (a)(1) amended, paragraph (b) deleted, and paragraph (c) redesignated paragraph (b) July 28, 2017 to be effective September 1, 2017. Part 3
Reese vs. Ethicon Order of Dismissal
3:22-10-Presence of Defendant at Hearing; Evidentiary Hearing 3:22-10 A defendant in custody may be present in court in the court's discretion. The defendant shall be entitled to be present when oral testimony is adduced. However, the defendant's presence may be waived by counsel upon request of the defendant. A defendant shall be entitled to an evidentiary hearing only upon the establishment of a prima facie case in support of post-conviction relief, a determination by the court that there are material issues of disputed fact that cannot be resolved by reference to the existing record, and a determination that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the claims for relief. To establish a prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits. Any factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary hearing. The scope of an evidentiary hearing shall be limited to the issue of whether the defendant was improperly convicted. A court shall not grant an evidentiary hearing: if an evidentiary hearing will not aid the court's analysis of the defendant's entitlement to post-conviction relief; if the defendant's allegations are too vague, conclusory or speculative; or for the purpose of permitting a defendant to investigate whether additional claims for relief exist for which defendant has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success as required by R. 3:22-10(b). Note: Source -- R.R. 3:10A-11; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; caption amended, first sentence of former rule deleted, remaining text of former rule retained as introductory language, and new paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009; introductory paragraph of rule amended and designated as new paragraph (a), former paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) redesignated as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), and former paragraph (d) amended and redesignated as paragraph (e) January 14, 2010 to be effective February 1, 2010. Part 3