- State v. Darryl Nieves; State v. Michael Cifelli (088683) (Middlesex County and Statewide) A-26/27-23 Supreme Nov. 20, 2025 Oral Argument A-26/27-23 A-26/27-23 Part 1 Audio for A-26/27-23 Part 1 A-26/27-23 Part 2 Audio for A-26/27-23 Part 2 Close Summary A-26/27-23 The Court agrees with the trial courts and Appellate Division that the State has not met its burden in establishing the reliability of SBS/AHT testimony here. Close
- Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. Cole Information Services ESX: L-7209-24 Trial Nov. 19, 2025
- Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. Cole Information Services ESX: L-7209-24 Trial Nov. 19, 2025
- Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. Peek You LLC, Richard Roes 1-10 ESX-L-3299-25 Trial Nov. 19, 2025
- Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. Constella Intelligence Inc. ESX-L-7212-24 Trial Nov. 19, 2025
- BANANA KING CORPORATION, ET AL. VS. ELIECER MONTOYA, ET AL. (C-000085-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1610-24 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- M.P.M. VS. K.S. (FV-20-1847-24, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3462-23 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- I.W.S. TRANSFER SYSTEMS OF N.J., INC. VS. PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF GARFIELD, ET AL. (L-4206-23, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0305-24 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OMAR CURRY (15-05-1232, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3810-23 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SILVER IQUCHUKWU (18-04-0282, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2810-23 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- TOWNHOMES AT ST. REGIS WALK ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. MARCIA COPELAND (F-005961-20, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3799-23 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- S.M.T. VS. S.A., ET AL. (FV-04-2749-24 AND FV-04-3792-24, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0973-24/A-1122-24 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026 Summary A-0973-24/A-1122-24 The parties appealed from their respective denials of final restraining orders (FROs) against each other. S.M.T. alleged a series of incidents regarding physical abuse, forced sexual acts, and coercive control within the parties' marriage. Although the trial court concluded S.A. committed the predicate act of simple assault and recognized a prior incident of simple assault against S.M.T., it did not make specific findings with respect to the sexual assault allegations or coercive control and ultimately denied S.M.T. an FRO. It reasoned the proven incidents of physical assault amounted to "marital contretemps" for which an FRO was not necessary to protect S.M.T. from future harm because any risk could be handled in the existing family dissolution matter. The court disagreed and concluded S.M.T. proved the need for an FRO because she proved simple assault, sexual assault, coercive control, and established the likelihood of a risk of continued domestic violence. A pending dissolution matter is not the appropriate forum to address future risk of domestic violence, unless the parties have mutually agreed to civil restraints. The court concluded if the predicate act involves physical force and violence, "the risk of harm is so great that the inquiry [regarding the secondary analysis of Silver v. Silver ] can be perfunctory." J.D. , 207 N.J. at 488. In these cases, "the decision to issue an FRO 'is most often . . . self-evident.'" A.M.C. v. P.B. , 447 N.J. Super. 402, 417 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting Silver , 387 N.J. at 127). It would be rare for proven physical assault to be deemed mere marital contretemps, and the court found no reported decision where marital contretemps was relied upon as a basis for denying a restraining order where physical assault was a proven predicate act. Additionally, effective January 8, 2024, the PDVA was amended to include coercive control among the statutory factors courts must consider when determining whether to issue an FRO. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(7). (“Any pattern of coercive control against a person that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with, threatens, or exploits a person's liberty, freedom, bodily integrity, or human rights with the court specifically considering evidence of the need for protection from immediate danger or the prevention of further abuse.”) Coercive control is not among the predicate acts enumerated in the PDVA; rather, it is analyzed pursuant to the second prong of Silver . The trial court failed to make findings regarding the allegations of coercive control in its analysis of prong two. S.M.T. detailed S.A.'s acts of coercive control in limiting her travel, controlling the family's finances and her access to money, surveillance by various electronic means, and depriving her of sleep using lights, television noise, and spilling water on her. The trial court stated: "It's clear from the contentions that it's somehow recognized by [S.M.T.] that [S.A.] feels he has a right to exert certain authority over her, and again, the [trial c]ourt doesn't pretend to understand the actual tenets of the faith or culture in that regard." The court noted actual tenets of faith and culture are not relevant as to whether acts of physical assault, sexual abuse, or coercive control have occurred. Close
- MARILUZ GUZMAN MOLINA, ET AL. VS. MARTHA GONZALEZ (C-000023-23, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1506-24 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DARVIN CANNON (14-02-0107, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2818-23 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- HOBOKEN MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. CITY OF HOBOKEN (L-3603-24, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1874-24 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- WILMINGTON TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC. VS. MARCIA COPELAND, ET AL. (F-002338-22, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3800-23 Appellate Feb. 10, 2026
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KHALIEL ARRINGTON (19-10-2757 AND 23-06-0086, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2570-23 Appellate Dec. 29, 2025
- IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLAR TRANSITION PURSUANT TO L. 2018, C. 17 – APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SOLAR FACILITY, ETC. (NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES) A-3975-23 Appellate Dec. 29, 2025
- IN THE MATTER OF THE NEW JERSEY SOLAR TRANSITION PURSUANT TO P.L. 2018, C. 17 – APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SOLAR FACILITY, ETC. (NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES) A-0424-24 Appellate Dec. 29, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH VIZCAYA (MA-24-128, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3467-23 Appellate Dec. 29, 2025