- ADAM DIPAOLO VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION, ETC. (C-000093-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0208-21 Appellate July 17, 2024
- 922 RVD, LLC, ET AL. VS. BC INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (L-3678-20, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0152-22 Appellate July 17, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAKEIL PRICE (08-10-1785, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1691-22 Appellate July 17, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF LOUIS J. LUCZU APPLICATION, ETC. (GPA-0014-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2706-22 Appellate July 17, 2024
- BART ALGOZZINI VS. DGMB CASINO, LLC, ET AL. (L-0043-21, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3113-22 Appellate July 17, 2024
- ARELIS GUTIERREZ VS. AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA (L-0724-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3551-22 Appellate July 17, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF NICOLE-KIRSTIE LLC VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) A-2308-21 Appellate July 18, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MIGUEL SUAREZ (98-04-0624, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3629-21 Appellate July 18, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BRIAN R. AUXER (16-08-1933, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1676-22 Appellate July 18, 2024
- TONY F. POLITE VS. AIRSHAD KAHN (L-1377-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2714-22 Appellate July 18, 2024
- STEPHANIE TILLMAN VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-3619-22 Appellate July 18, 2024
- LARISSA KUNIN VS. SERGEY KUNIN (FM-07-2714-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1509-23 Appellate July 18, 2024
- CKS PRIME INVESTMENTS, LLC v. DENISE COLON ESX- DC-4496-24 Trial July 16, 2024
- HALEY H. NEEMAN VS. WESTOVER COMPANIES, ET AL. (L-1319-19, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1660-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- NC COMMUNITY CENTER ASSOCIATES VS. BMAAWAD ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL. (L-2825-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1938-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- ROXANA GAVIRIA VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH (L-2426-22, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2479-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- DISCOVER BANK VS. SADIA TAHIR (DC-010515-20, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3068-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC ASSIGNEE OF WEBBANK VS. MORDECHAI GROSS (L-2591-22, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3561-22 Appellate July 19, 2024
- MARK CERKEZ, ET AL. VS. GLOUCESTER CITY, NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1516-23 AND L-0733-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0661-23/A-0745-23 Appellate July 19, 2024 Summary A-0661-23/A-0745-23 The central issue in these back-to-back appeals, which have been consolidated for the purpose of issuing a single opinion, is whether municipalities have an implied contractual (seller-consumer) relationship with residents to whom they distribute metered potable water. The answer to that question determines whether plaintiffs may sue defendants under a breach-of-contract theory on the grounds that the water supplied to them contains a high level of contaminants. Plaintiffs rely on older cases holding there was a contractual relationship between residents and their towns with respect to water service. Defendants rely on more recent cases recognizing a different type of relationship between municipal water distributors and residents—one that is not based on principles of contract law. The court concludes that under the current governance framework for public water systems, potable water is a public resource owned by the people and held in trust for them. Under that paradigm, defendant municipalities distribute water to their residents for a governmental purpose. They are not tantamount to private companies that sell water for profit. The fact they charge residents for the costs incurred for providing this governmental service —which varies based on the amount of water a resident receives—does not automatically create a contractual relationship. The court also concludes that for all practical purposes, the theory of liability in plaintiffs' complaints, while carefully drafted to employ the terminology of contract law, is indistinguishable from a warranty of fitness cause of action explicitly precluded under a provision of the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(b). Stated another way, using the label of a contract dispute to describe the cause of action does not change its essential character or transform the relationship between municipal water distributors and residents into a contractual one. The court thus concludes there is no foundation upon which contractual damages may be claimed against defendant municipalities. Close
- MARNA LYNN VS. MARK MEDING (FM-02-0527-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0075-22 Appellate July 22, 2024