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

Search

  • DCPP VS. M.R. AND A.P., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.P.R., JR. (FG-13-0032-24, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3568-23 Appellate June 16, 2025
  • GREGORY BECK VS. CATHY BECK (DC-004370-24, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3579-23 Appellate June 16, 2025
  • ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. VS. ROBERT MATTURRO, D.C., ET AL. (L-2707-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0711-24 Appellate June 16, 2025
  • Congregacion Mita, Inc. v. Cliffside Park Borough 009466-2022; 009640-2024 Tax June 13, 2025
  • IN THE MATTER OF T.W. (ML-07-05-0078, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3465-23 Appellate June 16, 2025
  • In re the Matter Concerning the State Grand Jury (089571) (Mercer County and Statewide) A-15-24 Supreme June 16, 2025 Oral Argument A-15-24 A-15-24 Audio for A-15-24 Close Summary A-15-24 The relevant case law and court rule on presentments contemplate the existence of both a grand jury investigation and an actual presentment for an assignment judge to review. But here, no grand jury has completed an investigation, and no presentment exists. Courts cannot presume the outcome of an investigation in advance or the contents of a presentment that has not yet been written. It was therefore premature for the trial court to conclude that any potential presentment in this matter had to be suppressed. The State has the right to proceed with its investigation and present evidence before a special grand jury. If the grand jury issues a presentment, the assignment judge should review the report and publish it if it complies with the legal standards outlined in the Court’s opinion. The Court cannot and does not decide the ultimate question in advance. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LATASHA M. BAKER (12-08-2188, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2785-22 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • SCOTT MAYERS VS. DAVID MAYERS (DC-005500-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0718-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • LISA CHEW VS. ROBERT CHEW (FM-08-0094-20, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1099-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • STACY SOVELOVE, ET AL. VS. DR. MICHAEL SHIRAZI, ET AL. (L-1635-19, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1540-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HUMPHREY COHEN (83-03-1433, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1558-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • ELARD TIMANA, JR. VS. ESTATE OF GARRET D. CHRISTINO, ET AL. (L-1986-21 AND L-0991-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1675-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • KEITH SALTERS, ETC. VS. SOUTH MOUNTAIN REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, ET AL. (L-2309-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1790-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • GEORGE NICHOLSON, JR., ETC. VS. BOROUGH OF NATIONAL PARK, ET AL. (L-0002-23, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1867-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY VS. NWAYIEZE C. NDUKWE (DC-003072-24, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3659-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • IN THE MATTER OF G.W., ETC. (P-000016-24, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3597-23 Appellate June 17, 2025 Summary A-3597-23      In this matter of apparent first impression, the court was asked to determine whether a future statutory lien pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7.2 ("Medicaid Lien Statute") has priority over an accrued Division of Developmental Disabilities ("DDD") lien pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-80.1 ("DDD Lien Statute").  The effect of that priority would be to bar appellant, DDD, from recovering on its lien against the inherited property of G.W. ("Gabrielle"), an adjudicated incapacitated person.          The court concluded the Medicaid Lien Statute and the DDD Lien Statute are not inconsistent with one another.  The Medicaid Lien Statute is clear that although Medicaid liens are " preferred claim[s] against the recipient's estate" and "have a priority equivalent to" N.J.S.A. 3B:22-2(d), N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7.2(d)(1) (emphasis added), they cannot come into being until the recipient of the funds has passed away, as "[a] lien may be filed against and recovery sought from the estate of a deceased recipient ." N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7.2(a)(1) (emphasis added).  By its plain language, a Medicaid lien may attach only to the estate of a decedent, not the property of a living person.  When both liens exist at the same time, an existing DDD lien cannot take priority over an existing Medicaid lien.  However, in a situation such as this one, where no Medicaid lien exists because the recipient is still alive, DDD is entitled to recover on its lien, the only statutorily recognized lien in existence.        Because the plain language of the Medicaid Lien Statute and the DDD Lien Statute demonstrate DDD is entitled to recover its lien now and the DDD lien is not subordinate to a non-existing Medicaid lien, the court vacated the trial court's order finding the future Medicaid lien had priority over the existing DDD lien and remanded for an order consistent with its opinion.  However, the court affirmed the trial court's appointment of the Arc of Bergen and Passaic Counties ("Arc") as the guardian of Gabrielle's property and ordered Arc and DDD to engage in the compromise process pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-80.6(c) regarding DDD's lien.   Close
  • FANG LIU VS. AFFINITY CARE OF NJ, ET AL. (L-2170-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2058-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • Aceks Property Management LLC v. Paterson City 010619-2022, 005959-2023, 006309-2024 Tax June 16, 2025
  • CARLOS FORTY VS. INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, ET AL./NANCY KARNUK VS. INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, ET AL./RACHEL JENKINS VS. INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, ET AL. (L-0627-21, L-0628-21 AND L-0629-21, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-4038-23/A-4039-23/A-4041-23 Appellate June 17, 2025
  • Charles Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick (089427) (Middlesex County and Statewide) A-6-24 Supreme June 17, 2025 Oral Argument A-6-24 A-6-24 Part-1 Audio for A-6-24 Part-1 A-6-24 Part-2 Audio for A-6-24 Part-2 Close Summary A-6-24 Applying First Amendment principles stated in Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97, 98, 102-03 (1979), and Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 530 (1989), the Court views Caputo’s specific address to constitute truthful information, lawfully obtained, that addresses a matter of public concern. As the parties agree and the trial court and Appellate Division determined, Daniel’s Law serves a state interest of the highest order: the protection of certain public officials and their immediate family members living in the same household so that those officials can perform their duties without fear of reprisal. See N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.3. Daniel’s Law, as applied to prevent Kratovil’s proposed republication of Caputo’s exact home address, is narrowly tailored to serve that state interest. Close