- CITY OF LINWOOD VS. JAY LODER, ET AL. (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) A-0148-24 Appellate Sept. 29, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. R.A.M. (22-06-0989, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1444-23 Appellate Sept. 29, 2025 Summary Summary - A-1444-23 After a jury trial, defendant R.A.M. appealed from his second-degree aggravated assault conviction for strangulation of a victim of domestic violence, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(13), and resulting six-year prison sentence. Defendant challenged the prosecutor's summation and the trial court's imposed sentence. Defendant raised a question of first impression regarding the trial court's application of aggravating factor fifteen, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(15). The court holds the trial court did not impermissibly double-count defendant's underlying domestic violence related offense in finding aggravating factor fifteen applied because, in addition to the trial court's finding that the jury convicted defendant of an offense involving a domestic violence victim, the trial court separately determined the State established defendant had previously committed an act of domestic violence. The court also concluded that defendant's arguments that the trial court improperly considered defendant's dismissed charges, that it provided insufficient reasons for the sentencing factors considered, and that the prosecutor's summation amounted to plain error lacked merit. Close
- a2855-23.pdf
- a1573-24.pdf
- a2074-23.pdf
- a3812-23.pdf
- a0855-22.pdf
- a3225-23.pdf
- a2087-23.pdf
- a0148-24.pdf
- a1444-23.pdf
- 3:26-4-Form and Place of Deposit; Location of Real Estate; Record of Recognizances, Discharge and Forfeiture Thereof 3:26-4, Deposit of Monetary Bail., A person admitted to monetary bail or a combination of monetary bail and non-monetary conditions of pretrial release shall, together with that person's sureties, sign and execute a recognizance before the person authorized to take monetary bail or, if the defendant is in custody, the person in charge of the place of confinement. The recognizance shall contain the terms set forth in R. 1:13-3(b) and shall be conditioned upon the defendant's appearance at all stages of the proceedings until final determination of the matter, unless otherwise ordered by the court. One or more sureties may be required. Cash may be accepted and in proper cases no security need be required. A corporate surety shall be one approved by the Commissioner of Insurance and shall execute the recognizance under its corporate seal, cause the same to be duly acknowledged and shall annex thereto proof of authority of the officers or agents executing the same and of corporate authority and qualification. Monetary bail given in the Superior Court shall be deposited with the Finance Division Manager in the county in which the offense was committed, provided that upon order of the court monetary bail shall be transferred from the county of deposit to the county in which defendant is to be tried. Real estate offered as monetary bail for indictable and non-indictable offenses shall be approved by and deposited with the clerk of the county in which the offense occurred and not with the Municipal Court clerk. In any county, with the approval of the Assignment Judge, a program may be instituted for the deposit in court of cash in the amount of 10 percent of the amount of monetary bail fixed. , Limitation on Individual Surety., Unless the court for good cause otherwise permits, no surety, other than an approved corporate surety, shall enter into a recognizance or undertaking for monetary bail if there remains undischarged any previous recognizance or monetary bail undertaken by that surety. , Real Estate in Other Counties., Real estate owned by a surety located in a county other than the one in which the monetary bail is taken may be accepted, in which case the clerk of the court in which the monetary bail is taken shall forthwith transmit a copy of the recognizance certified by that clerk to the clerk of the county in which the real estate is situated, who shall record it in the same manner as if the recognizance had been taken in that clerk's county. , Record of Recognizance., The clerk of every court, except the municipal court, before which any recognizance shall be entered into shall record immediately into the Central Automated Bail System (CABS), the names of the persons entering into the recognizance, the amount thereof and the date of its acknowledgment. The Central Automated Bail System shall be kept in the clerk's office of the county in which such court shall be held, and be open for public inspection. In municipal court proceedings the record of the recognizance shall be entered in the docket book maintained by the clerk. , Record of Discharge; Forfeiture., When any recognizance shall be discharged by court order upon proof of compliance with the conditions thereof or by reason of the judgment in any matter, the clerk of the court shall enter the word "discharged" and the date of discharge at the end of the record of such recognizance. When any recognizance is forfeited, the Finance Division Manager shall enter the word "forfeited", and the date of forfeiture at the end of the record of such recognizance, and shall give notice of such forfeiture to the county counsel. When real estate of the surety located in a county other than the one in which the bail was taken is affected, the clerk of the court in which such recognizance is given shall forthwith send notice of the discharge or forfeiture and the date thereof to the clerk of the county where such real estate is situated, who shall make the appropriate entry at the end of the record of such recognizance. , Cash Deposit., When a person other than the defendant deposits cash in lieu of bond, the person making the deposit shall file an affidavit or certification concerning the lawful ownership thereof, and on discharge such cash may be returned to the owner named in the affidavit or certification. , Ten Percent Cash Bail., Except in first or second degree cases and certain crimes or offenses involving domestic violence as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:162-12 and unless the order setting monetary bail specifies to the contrary for good cause shown, whenever monetary bail is set pursuant to Rule 3:26-1, monetary bail may be satisfied by the deposit in court of cash in the amount of ten-percent of the amount of monetary bail fixed and defendant's execution of a recognizance for the remaining ninety percent. No surety shall be required unless the court fixing monetary bail specifically so orders. When cash equal to ten-percent of the monetary bail fixed is deposited pursuant to this Rule, if the cash is owned by someone other than the defendant, the owner shall charge no fee for the deposit other than lawful interest and shall submit an affidavit or certification with the deposit so stating and also listing the names of any other persons for whom the owner has deposited monetary bail. The person making the deposit authorized by this subsection shall file an affidavit or certification concerning the lawful ownership thereof, and on discharge such cash may be returned to the owner named in the affidavit or certification. , Note:, Source -- R.R. 3:9-5(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g). Paragraph (a) amended June 29, 1973 to be effective September 10, 1973; paragraph (a) amended July 16, 1979 to be effective September 10, 1979; paragraph (g) adopted November 5, 1986 to be effective January 1, 1987; paragraph (a) amended November 7, 1988 to be effective January 2, 1989; paragraphs (f) and (g) amended July 14, 1992 to be effective September 1, 1992; paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (g) amended February 27, 1995 to be effective immediately; paragraphs (a), (d), (e), (f) and (g) amended June 15, 2007 to be effective September 1, 2007; paragraph (g) amended July 9, 2013 to be effective September 1, 2013; paragraph (a) caption and text amended, paragraphs (b), (c) and (g) amended August 30, 2016 to be effective January 1, 2017. Part 3
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ZENG L. CHEN (10-10-1964, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2168-23 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025
- IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL RECORDS OF C.T. (XP-22-002565, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3295-23 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025
- JOHN JOHNSON VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-1889-23 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025
- TRENTON STEM-TO-CIVICS CHARTER SCHOOL VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-2041-24 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025
- SHEILA ELIJAH, ETC. VS. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION (L-2137-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2335-23 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025
- JOSEFA FILGUEIRAS VS. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. (L-5932-21 AND L-1374-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0686-24/A-0890-24 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025
- NATALIA KRONFELD VS. ELLIOTT MALONE, ET AL. (L-4946-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2044-23 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025 Summary Summary - A-2044-23 In this legal malpractice action, the trial court denied plaintiff's eighth motion to extend discovery. Because a trial date was previously fixed in the sixth order extending discovery, the trial court determined the exceptional circumstances standard set forth in Rule 4:24-1(c) applied. It denied the motion because plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff failed to serve an expert report in support of her claims of legal malpractice. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding plaintiff's opposition to the motion was deficient, and her legal malpractice claims failed as a matter of law because she did not have an expert. The court affirmed. It determined the trial court correctly applied the exceptional circumstances standard and did not misapply its discretion by denying the eighth motion to extend discovery. In doing so, the court addressed the scope of its decision in Hollywood Café Diner, Inc. v. Jaffee , 473 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 2022), to clarify that its limitation on the applicability of the exceptional circumstances standard set forth in Rule 4:24-1(c) applies only when an arbitration or trial date is set administratively by notice prior to the conclusion of the discovery period. It held that once an arbitration or trial date is set by a judge in a discovery end date (DED) extension or case management order entered after expiration of the applicable initial period of discovery set forth in Rule 4:24-1(a), no extension of the discovery period may be permitted unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL ARENA (23-08-0945, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2947-23 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025