Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • ABE COHEN VS. WORKSHOP/APD ARCHITECTURE, D.P.C. (L-3464-22, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0566-23 Appellate July 24, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CALEB T. THELISME (22-12-0871, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1150-23 Appellate July 24, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEVIN B. BOONE (20-12-0521, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3503-21 Appellate July 24, 2024 Summary A-3503-21 The court reverses the denial of a motion to suppress drug evidence discovered by a detective following a dog sniff after an admitted pretext stop.  Although not questioning the detective's good faith or impugning the trial court's finding that he was a credible witness, the court finds neither is enough to justify this stop.  "The suspicion necessary to justify a stop must not only be reasonable, but also particularized."  State v. Scriven , 226 N.J. 20, 37 (2016).  The detective failed to offer facts sufficient, as a matter of law, to allow the court to determine he possessed a reasonable articulable suspicion that Boone failed to maintain his lane "as nearly as practicable."  N.J.S.A. 39:88(b).  See State v. Woodruff , 403 N.J. Super. 620, 627-28 (Law Div. 2008).  We do not reach defendant's argument that the automobile exception did not apply because the circumstances giving rise to probable cause were not spontaneous and unforeseeable as required under State v. Witt , 223 N.J. 409, 447-48 (2015).  See State v. Smart , 253 N.J. 156, 171 (2023).       Close
  • In the Matter of Brian Ambroise (088042) (Statewide) A-10-23 Supreme July 23, 2024 Oral Argument A-10-23 A-10-23 Audio for A-10-23 Close Summary A-10-23 The Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably for failing to credit the Department of Corrections’ view that the sustained charges against the officer undermined prison security and touched directly at the heart of his ability to obey the protocols pertaining to his employment at a correctional facility. The Commission’s decision to impose a six-month sanction is disproportionate to the serious and highly concerning offenses found in this record. Close
  • Shlomo Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey (087994) (Bergen County and Statewide) A-11-23 Supreme July 24, 2024 Oral Argument A-11-23 A-11-23 Audio for A-11-23 Close Summary A-11-23 The six members of the Court who participated in this appeal unanimously agree that the standard set forth in in McKelvey , 173 N.J. at 51, applies in this case. The Court thus readopts that standard, with two refinements to accord with recent United States Supreme Court precedent, as set forth in Section III.C. of Justice Patterson’s concurring opinion. See infra. at ___ (slip op. at 26-32). The members of the Court are equally divided as to whether discovery is required in this case. As a result, the judgment of the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case on summary judgment without discovery, is affirmed Close
  • THE ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES MERCER-MONMOUTH, ET AL. VS. ROBBINSVILLE TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD, ET AL. (L-1249-21, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2509-21 Appellate July 25, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. G.L. (12-05-0354, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0979-22 Appellate July 25, 2024
  • RICKY MARTER VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-2104-22 Appellate July 25, 2024
  • PUTNAM AT TINTON FALLS, LLC VS. RICHARD ANNUNZIATA, ET AL. (L-1900-12, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2605-22 Appellate July 25, 2024
  • S.K.S. VS. A.M. (L-3073-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2918-22 Appellate July 25, 2024
  • KYLE FORCINITO VS. BOROUGH OF CLAYTON (L-0512-23, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0433-23 Appellate July 25, 2024
  • Moerae Matrix, Inc. v. McCarter & English, LLP MRS-L-371-22 Trial July 24, 2024
  • Verizon New Jersey, Inc. v. Borough of Hopewell (088421) (Statewide) A-22-23 Supreme July 25, 2024 Oral Argument A-22-23 A-22-23 Audio for A-22-23 Close Summary A-22-23 The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Accurso’s opinion. The Court concurs with the Appellate Division “that ‘local telephone exchange’ as used in N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 means a local telephone network within a defined geographical area as depicted on Verizon’s tariff exchange maps.” ___ N.J. Super. at ___ (slip op. at 52). Close
  • IN THE MATTER OF AUGUSTIN ALVAREZ, UNION COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-3668-21 Appellate July 26, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAWN M. FENIMORE (21-08-0541, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2246-22 Appellate July 26, 2024
  • E.S.W. VS. D.A.P. (FV-20-0498-23, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2531-22 Appellate July 26, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. F.B.I. (FO-04-0327-23 AND FO-04-0170-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2566-22 Appellate July 26, 2024
  • ANGELA M. CARRILLO-MENDOZA VS. LAURIE S. KURS, ET AL. (L-0163-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3148-22 Appellate July 26, 2024
  • VALLEY NATIONAL BANK VS. ENCORE LED LIGHTING, LLC, ET AL. (L-1202-23, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0391-23 Appellate July 26, 2024
  • TOWN OF MORRISTOWN V MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION 005100-24 TOWN OF MORRISTOWN V MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION 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