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

Search

  • 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
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMIE COOPER (08-08-22, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1806-24 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
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL ARENA (23-08-0945, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2947-23 Appellate Oct. 1, 2025
  • Estate of Brenda Adams v. Essex Garden Group ESX-L-1240-25 Trial Nov. 19, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN FLORENCE (93-04-1390, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0858-23 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • N.C. VS. C.N. (FD-18-0458-20, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2806-23 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • Livingston Mall Venture v. Llvingston Mall Dental, P.A. and Stomatcare DSO, LLC ESX-L-1830-22 Trial Nov. 19, 2025
  • SANDRA LEMA, ET AL. VS. THE BOROUGH OF GARWOOD, ET AL. (L-3957-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3086-23 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF HOUSING INSPECTION VS. FRANK BRIGHT (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS) A-3108-23 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH BLACKHAM (23-022-A, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3722-23 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARVIN M. BROWN (98-11-4356, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1449-24 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • GREEN LAGO, LLC VS. ANY GARMENT CLEANERS NO. 3, LLC, ET AL. (L-1913-14, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0360-24 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • DCPP VS. F.S-T., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF M.Y.S-A. (FN-20-0061-24, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1210-24 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025
  • SHERRI A. AFFRUNTI VS. REED SMITH LLP (L-2297-20, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2477-24 Appellate Nov. 20, 2025 Summary A-2477-24      Plaintiff Sherri A. Affrunti filed a Law Division complaint seeking compensation claims against her former employer, defendant Reed Smith, LLP, under provisions of the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (Allen Act or statute), L. 2018, c. 9 (codified as amended in various sections of N.J.S.A.),  the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Act (WPA), N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.14.  On leave to appeal, Affrunti raises issues of first impression under the Allen Act arising from the motion court's omnibus order.       The first issue concerns the scope of damages resulting from the Allen Act's expansion of the lookback period for claims under the LAD and WPA from two years to six years.  The motion court, citing the two-part test to determine whether a statute is applied retroactively or prospectively set forth in our Supreme Court's recent decision in Maia v. IEW Constr. Grp. , 257 N.J. 330 (2024), applied the statute prospectively; thus, its order limited Affrunti's damages to the period from July 1, 2018 (the Allen Act's effective date) to January 11, 2019 (the date her employment ended with Reed Smith).       The court agrees with the motion court that, based on Maia , the Allen Act should be applied prospectively.  The court nonetheless concludes the court incorrectly applied this prospective approach in its order.  The Allen Act's six-year lookback period applies to claims arising after its effective date but does not eliminate the prior two-year lookback period under the LAD and WPA that existed prior to the statute.  Applying the LAD's two-year lookback period, Affrunti should be allowed to pursue damages from December 18, 2020 (the date she filed her complaint) to December 18, 2018––not July 1, 2018 to January 11, 2019, as the motion court held.  The court does not review claims of continuing violations occurring prior to December 18, 2018.      The second issue on appeal is whether the discovery of comparator employee compensation data authorized under the Allen Act should be limited to July 1, 2018 through January 11, 2019 due to the motion court's prospective application of the statute.  The court concludes the motion court erred in limiting discovery to this time period.  The court determines that the discovery period should be from December 18, 2018 to December 18, 2020, corresponding to the two-year lookback period.  Any expansion of the period based on continuing violations is not reviewed in this appeal.       The third issue on appeal is whether the Allen Act's provision that "[c]omparison of wage rates shall be based on wage rates in all of an employer's operations or facilities" should be interpreted to apply to all of an employer’s operations, whether in-state or nationwide.  The court concludes the motion court erred in limiting comparator employee compensation data to Reed Smith's New Jersey office.  The Allen Act's text, legislative history, and relevant agency interpretations support broad discovery of the comparator employee compensation data provision, thus permitting Affrunti to obtain Reed Smith's national comparator data.       The fourth issue on appeal is whether the discovery of comparator employee compensation data should cover January 1, 2006 (the approximate date Reed Smith promoted Affrunti to Non-Equity/Fixed Shared Partner (FSP)) to January 11, 2019.  The court concludes the motion court erred in restricting discovery to July 1, 2018 through January 11, 2019.  Affrunti is entitled to discovery from January 1, 2006 to January 11, 2019, as she is permitted broad discovery of national comparator employee compensation data.  Close
  • DAVID TIMPANARO, ET AL. VS. JENKINSON'S PAVILION, INC., ET AL. (L-1110-21, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0183-24 Appellate Nov. 21, 2025 Summary A-0183-24      In this wrongful death case, the court rejects defendants' argument construing the immunity provision of the Landowners Liability Act ("LLA"), N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-2 to -10 to shield them from liability for a drowning death that occurred on their oceanfront commercial property.  Plaintiffs contend defendants breached their duty of care by failing to close and prevent access to its beaches on the day of decedent's drowning, and by having inadequate warning signs.       Defendants are owners and operators of an oceanfront amusement park and beaches to which plaintiffs and decedent were permitted access following the summer swimming season with no lifeguards on duty.  While standing at the water's edge, decedent suddenly encountered a series of sudden and rogue waves that carried him into the ocean where he drowned.       Although the court declines to construe the LLA to immunize a drowning in the ocean, the court upholds the Law Division judge's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim that defendants should have prevented access to its beaches in the absence of any active storm or hurricane warnings.  The court correctly found that defendants were obligated to allow access to the beach under environmental permits issued to them and the Public Access Doctrine that specified only limited situations of severe weather when access to the beaches could be closed.      Even viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Law Division judge properly concluded defendants owed no duty to plaintiffs and decedent to prevent access to its beaches on the day in question.  In addition, the judge correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims of confusing signage because plaintiffs admitted at their depositions they understood that the beach was open but no swimming was allowed.       Judge Sabatino has filed a concurring opinion that addresses signage issues.      Accordingly, the court affirms the finding of summary judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint.  Close
  • J And B Realty, L.L. C. Vs Mitsui Foods, Inc BER-L-6543-24 Trial Nov. 19, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE FLORES (23-03-0339, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3647-23 Appellate Nov. 24, 2025
  • Z.M. VS. K.M. (FM-09-2321-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0037-24 Appellate Nov. 24, 2025
  • MICHELE ARMINIO VS. MONROE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-6748-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0207-24 Appellate Nov. 24, 2025 Summary A-0207-24      Plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against defendant, alleging defendant violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21.  The complaint claimed defendant deliberated and decided it would vote to appoint a specific candidate to fill a vacancy on the Board of Education in closed session and then resumed its public session to nominate and vote the candidate onto the Board.       The OPMA contains several exceptions to the requirement for open public meetings, including as relevant here, N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8), the so-called personnel exception.  The exception states:  "A public body may exclude the public only from that portion of a meeting at which the public body discusses any:  . . . matter involving the . . . appointment . . . of any specific prospective public officer . . . ."  N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8).      Relying on Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Board of Education of Manville , 201 N.J. Super. 65 (Law Div. 1984), the trial court found N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) did not apply because that case held the personnel exception inapplicable to elected officials.  The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment, voided the Board member's appointment, and subsequently denied defendant's motion for reconsideration.       On appeal, defendant argues it did not violate the OPMA because it was permitted to discuss the candidate in closed session and then nominate and vote to appoint the candidate in public session.  It claims the trial court misinterpreted Gannett .       The court affirms as modified, and concludes defendant violated the OPMA.  The record showed Board members reviewed and ranked their top choices before the public meeting.  Once in its closed session, Board members discussed the pros and cons of the top three candidates and agreed to nominate a specific candidate.  When the public session resumed, the floor was opened for nominations, a Board member nominated the consensus candidate, another member seconded the nomination, and the Board voted—all without taking questions or comments from the public regarding the candidates or having a public discussion.       However, the court disapproves of the holding in Gannett that N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) does not apply to elected officials appointed by a board because it is unsupported by the plain language of the statute.  N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) applied here since defendant was discussing a matter involving the appointment of a specific prospective public officer.       The court holds a board may discuss candidates it intends to appoint in closed session.  However, when it resumes the public session, it must explain any decisions taken during the closed session and allow public discussion about those decisions and other matters the public wishes to raise, before it moves to nominations and a vote to fill a vacancy. Close