njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … August 2, 2019 dismissal on summary judgment of plaintiff's complaint, and the September 13, 2019 denial of … basis are unexplained. Defendant's expert could not timely complete a report until plaintiff provided medical records. …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … did not lodge a detainer with the federal prison. After completing his custodial sentence, defendant was released on … As a matter of fundamental fairness, excessive delay in completing a prosecution may qualify as a violation of a …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. 2 A-2879-19 Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant Kohl's Department … or your representative and the defendant have had any oral communication concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit, …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … JERSEY, in his official capacity, MARCUS O. HICKS, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in his official capacity, and CAROLE JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … August 2, 2019 dismissal on summary judgment of plaintiff's complaint, and the September 13, 2019 denial of … basis are unexplained. Defendant's expert could not timely complete a report until plaintiff provided medical records. …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … Natali and Smith. On appeal from the New Jersey Real Estate Commission, Department of Banking and Insurance. Tonacchio, Spina & Compitello, attorneys for appellant Marta Cunha-Corcoran …
-
njcourts.gov
… RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … Defendant argues the Family Part judge erroneously found he committed the predicate act of harassment and that the FRO … On January 1, 2023, plaintiff filed a domestic violence complaint and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO). …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0467-22 EDWARD FARLEY AIZEN, Complainant-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN … Perez Friscia. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Government Records Council, Docket No. …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … for the reasons set forth in Judge Haekyoung Suh's comprehensive and thoughtful written opinion. I. The facts … percent "of any salary increase or bonus over his current income of $710,000 as additional alimony." The MSA further …
-
njcourts.gov
… RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … County, Docket No. FV-01-0565-23. Tonacchio, Spina & Compitello, attorneys for appellant (Ciro A. Spina, of … restraining order (TRO) after filing a domestic violence complaint alleging defendant committed a predicate act of …
-
njcourts.gov
… RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … following salient facts from defendant. He testified he had completed one year of college and worked in information … discretion as it is too excessive, when there are other remedies available, including termination of the child support …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … the trial record. On about May 1, 2024, Dandis purchased a commercial building located at 189-193 Railroad Avenue, … the owner of Railroad LLC. The property had multiple commercial units, which were occupied by tenants. At the …
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … the Township of River Vale (Township) and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we … roof of his home. Because plaintiff's application was incomplete, the Township denied the construction permit. …
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … 150 days of administrative segregation, 210 days' loss of commutation time, 365 days of urine monitoring, permanent … 285, 307 (App. Div. 1990) (quoting DeVitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 491 (App. Div. 1985)). On …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … 150 days of administrative segregation, 210 days' loss of commutation time, 365 days of urine monitoring, permanent … 285, 307 (App. Div. 1990) (quoting DeVitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 491 (App. Div. 1985)). On …
-
njcourts.gov
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … the Township of River Vale (Township) and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we … roof of his home. Because plaintiff's application was incomplete, the Township denied the construction permit. …
njcourts.gov
… RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … loaded firearm in her face and said, "[i]f [her ex-husband] comes to my home, this is the last thing he'll see." … for evidence without a reasonable basis is not an ingredient of either due process or fundamental fairness in the …
default
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … per month, "based upon [plaintiff's] imputed annual gross income of $25,000 and [defendant's] annual base income of … cohabitation were not specified by statute but instead embodied in case law. See, e.g., Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 …
default
… SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … The October 15, 2018 order, entered by Judge Haekyoung Suh, compelled plaintiff to satisfy his support obligations as … status. On March 27, 2020, Judge Suh entered an order compelling plaintiff to reimburse defendant Deborah E. Kelly …
default
… RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. … an annual salary of $125,000 in 2017 and that defendant's income would be imputed to be $40,000. Additionally, once the … The trial court determined that "while the plaintiff's income [was] substantially higher than . . . defendant's, his …