- GARDEN STATE COMMERCIAL SERVICES, LLC VS. PIETRO CUCARO (C-000117-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1891-21 Appellate Nov. 15, 2023
- CARSON PACKER VS. ROSELINE ESTELLE KONE (SC-000282-21, HUDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3501-21 Appellate Nov. 15, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RASUL MCNEIL-THOMAS (12-06-1570, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0346-22 Appellate Nov. 15, 2023
- DCPP VS. A.M.W. AND R.A.S. SR. I/M/O R.A.S., JR. AND E.R.S. (FG-09-0102-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1044-22 Appellate Nov. 15, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM J. SILVERS, III (19-07-0813, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2353-21 – STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM J. SILVERS, III (19-07-0813, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication] A-2353-21 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM J. SILVERS, III (19-07-0813, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2353-21 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023 Summary A-2353-21 The main issue in this criminal appeal is whether the trial judge erred during jury selection in denying defense counsel's requests to remove for cause two potential jurors who are police officers. The officers are employed by police departments in different municipalities from where the alleged offenses occurred, investigated, and were prosecuted, but within the same county. The court rejects defendant's contention that because interaction with the county prosecutor's office is inherently a "necessary component of their jobs as police officers," active-duty police officers who work in the same county where the criminal charges arose must be stricken for cause from juries upon a defendant's request. Instead of applying a categorical bar, the court continues the tradition of State v. Reynolds , 124 N.J. 559, 565 (1991), in which the Supreme Court recognized the concerns about the potential bias of police-officer-jurors, but which also declined to endorse a strict policy to remove them for cause. The Court in Reynolds instructed judges "should be inclined to excuse a member of the law enforcement community" from the jury on a defendant's request, leaving it to the trial courts to perform an individualized assessment of each juror's ability to be fair and impartial. Ibid. Extending the nuanced approach of Reynolds , the Court holds that a per se finding of cause to strike a criminal juror in law enforcement should only apply to employees of the same police department or prosecutor's office that investigated or prosecuted the charged offense. To aid trial judges and counsel, the court presents non-exhaustive factors that should be considered in evaluating, on a juror-by-juror and case-by-case basis, whether there is cause to remove a juror employed in law enforcement. If, on the whole, those factors establish cause, the trial court "shall" remove the juror, as is required under the recently reinforced language of Rule 1:8-3(b). Applying these principles, the court affirms the trial judge's denial of defendant's request to strike for cause one of the two police officers, but finds error with respect to the other officer, based on the officers’ respective voir dire responses. However, the latter officer was never summoned to the jury box, so the error in failing to remove the juror for cause was harmless. The unpublished portion of this opinion rejects unrelated arguments raised by defendant alleging evidentiary and sentencing errors. Close
- State v. Michael Olenowski (082253) (Morris County & Statewide) See Feb. 17, 2023 opinion A-56-18 Supreme Nov. 15, 2023 Oral Argument A-56-18 A-56-18- Part 1 (06/01/23) Argued Videos Audio for A-56-18- Part 1 (06/01/23) Argued Videos A-56-18- Part 2 (06/01/23) Argued Videos Audio for A-56-18- Part 2 (06/01/23) Argued Videos A-56-18- Part 1 (01/17/23) Argued Videos Audio for A-56-18- Part 1 (01/17/23) Argued Videos A-56-18- Part 2 (01/17/23) Argued Videos Audio for A-56-18- Part 2 (01/17/23) Argued Videos A-56-18- (10/08/19) Argued Videos Audio for A-56-18- (10/08/19) Argued Videos Close Summary A-56-18 Daubert -based expert reliability determinations in criminal appeals will be reviewed de novo, while other expert admissibility issues are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Close
- C.P. VS. THE GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ET AL. (L-5508-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1779-22 Appellate Nov. 15, 2023 Summary A-1779-22 On leave granted in this child sexual abuse case, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to defendants Watchtower Bible and Trust Society of New York, Inc. and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (defendants). Plaintiff C.P., now an adult, was sexually abused by her grandfather in the 1970's and 1980's. He was authorized to serve as an elder for defendants' congregations. Plaintiff alleges defendants owed her a "special duty" to protect her from her grandfather's sexual criminal acts because they knew he had engaged in sexual conduct with at least three minors, including herself, but did not discipline him and negligently retained him as an elder. In 1994, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her grandfather and other family members, which resulted in a sizeable jury award in her favor. Plaintiff did not name defendants in the 1994 lawsuit because the Charitable Immunity Act (CIA) as it existed at the time precluded actions against non-profit, educational, and religious institutions for willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct resulting in sexual abuse. In 1995, the CIA was amended to permit such causes of action. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a). In 2006, the CIA was again amended to provide an exception to immunity for negligence claims where the supervision, hiring, and retention of an employee, agent, or servant led to sexual abuse. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7.4. In 2021, plaintiff filed suit against defendants under the Child Victims Act (CVA), L. 2019, c. 120, which provided a two-year revival window for victims to file otherwise time-barred claims for sexual crimes committed against them while minors. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(b). The CVA also amended the CIA to allow retroactive liability against religious and other organizations. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 and N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(b). The court agreed with the trial court that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff's claims asserted in her 2021 complaint were not cognizable under the CIA in 1994. The court further found the trial court properly supported its decisions rejecting the applicability of the entire controversy doctrine and judicial estoppel. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER R. SMALL/STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER M. VERITY (19-06-0291, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-2255-19/A-3381-19 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- HUDSON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ETC. VS. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC. (L-2936-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0978-21 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- ALEXA BAEZ ZUCCO, ET AL. VS. WALGREEN EASTERN CO. INC., ET AL. (L-5482-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1709-21 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EXAMPLIAR EXANTUS (16-01-0281, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1838-21 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- H.L. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES) A-2052-21 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RASHON BARKLEY, ET AL. (93-04-1390, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2505-21 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- FLORHAM VILLAGE, LLC. VS. PURE LIFESTYLE LLC., ET AL. (L-0794-21, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0924-22 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CARLOS HERNANDEZ REVOCABLE TRUST DATED OCTOBER 22, 2018, AS AMENDED ON JUNE 30, 2020 (P-000108-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1283-22 Appellate Nov. 16, 2023
- DCPP v. D.C.A. and J.J.C.B. (087604) (Cumberland County & Statewide) A-44-22 Supreme Nov. 16, 2023 Oral Argument A-44-22 A-44-22 Audio for A-44-22 Close Summary A-44-22 Based on the plain language of the 2021 Amendment, the Court concurs with the trial court and Appellate Division that the Legislature did not intend to bar trial courts from considering evidence of the child’s relationship with the resource family when they address the fourth prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The trial court properly considered the relationships between the children and their resource families when it considered the fourth prong of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4), and its determination as to all four prongs of that test was grounded in substantial and credible evidence in the record. Close
- CHERYL SAUSELEIN-RACZ VS. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY (L-0181-20, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2322-21 Appellate Nov. 17, 2023
- MANSOUR S. MANSOUR VS. GEMINI RESTORATION, INC., ET AL. (L-0087-20, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2404-21 Appellate Nov. 17, 2023
- GREGORY ROYAL VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) A-2680-21 Appellate Nov. 17, 2023