Opinion Summaries

The appellate tests for reviewing an administrative disciplinary sanction and a criminal sentence are virtually the same. Therefore, the Appellate Division erred in suggesting that appellate review of a disciplinary sanction imposed by a judge is de novo and different from traditional appellate review of an agency determination. Additionally, merely because the factual findings and rulings made by ALJs are oftentimes contingent on whether an agency accepts, rejects, or modifies an ALJ’s decision does not mean that ALJs are second-tier players or hold an inferior status as factfinders. Based on its deferential standard of review, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s decision is shocking to one’s sense of fairness.

The panel considered the appeals of owners of two adjacent tax lots on the site of the former Palisades Amusement Park in Cliffside Park from Tax Court judgments affirming the 2011-2013 tax assessments on the properties. The Tax Court found plaintiffs had overcome the presumption of the validity of the assessments; rejected the Borough's cost approach for valuing the property; rejected the reliability of improvement costs generated by computer software; accepted plaintiffs' expert's hybrid approach to valuation but found the appraiser lacked adequate objective evidence to support his adjustments; and determined there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to permit the court to make an independent finding of true value, resulting in the assessments being affirmed. The panel affirms, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Fiamingo in her written opinion, which is reported at 29 N.J. Tax 245 (Tax 2016).

In this appeal, plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their medical malpractice complaint for failure to serve an affidavit of merit. The motion judge rejected plaintiffs' argument that the "common knowledge" exception relieved them of that obligation because the nurses who cared for one of the plaintiffs failed to take any action when a nasogastric (NG) tube that was properly inserted into her, in accordance with a physician's order, became dislodged and allegedly caused her to suffer serious injuries. The motion judge found the fact that the tube was initially inserted in accordance with a physician's order, to be "critical in making this determination" and changed "this matter from a case where a jury with ordinary knowledge and experience could make a determination . . . to a standard of care case that requires expert testimony" because "a jury [could not] make a determination . . . without knowing what . . . a nurse [should] do" when a [NG] tube is inserted pursuant to an order but subsequently comes out.

The panel disagreed and concluded that the nurses' failure to take any action – not even contacting the physician who ordered that the tube be inserted – demonstrated that a health care provider failed to adhere to a doctor's order and therefore satisfied the purposes of the Affidavit of Merit Statute by establishing that plaintiffs' claim had sufficient merit under the common knowledge exception to proceed.

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency filed a Tile 9 abuse and neglect complaint against defendant alleging he sexually molested his biological daughter. Defendant argues the Family Part Judge improperly drew an adverse inference against him when he invoked his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and this State's evidence rule N.J.R.E. 503 in response to the Division's request to call him as a witness in the fact-finding hearing. The Judge relied on this adverse inference of culpability to corroborate the child's hearsay statements. This issue has not been addressed in a published opinion by any court in this State.

This court holds that a Family Part Judge may not draw an adverse inference of culpability against a defendant who invokes his right against self-incrimination to refuse to testify at a Title 9 fact-finding hearing. This court also holds that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record shows defendant satisfied the two-prong standard established by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 687 (1984), and adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R., 192 N.J. 301, 311 (2007).

Jude Koblitz concurs in the result but does not agree that a parent is entitled to invoke the right against self-incrimination and decline to testify at a fact-finding hearing in an abuse or neglect matter. In Judge Koblitz's view, the parent's testimony may not subsequently be used by the prosecutor in a parallel criminal proceeding.

The court holds that if an attorney charges clients in LAD and other fee-shifting cases a fee based in whole or in part on an hourly rate, the attorney is ethically obligated to: disclose that the hourly rate-based fee could approach or exceed the client's recovery; provide examples of hourly rate-based fees in similar types of cases; and inform the client that other competent counsel represent clients in similar cases solely on a contingent fee basis.

Similarly, counsel who require clients to advance costs are ethically obligated to provide information about litigation costs such as deposition and expert fees, and provide examples of what costs have totaled in similar types of cases. An attorney is also ethically obligated to inform the client that other competent counsel who represent clients in similar cases advance litigation costs.

In these appeals, the panel considered whether fees imposed by defendant municipalities on multi-family rental property owners were solely for revenue generation as prohibited under Timber Glen Phase III, LLC v. Township of Hamilton, 441 N.J. Super. 514 (App. Div. 2015), or if they were reasonably related to the municipalities' exercise of their regulatory powers as authorized by statute. In Timber Glen, the court held that a municipality's license fee was ultra vires because "the power to regulate and to license, although related, are discrete" and that the power to regulate did not include the power to require a license and payment of a fee. However, the court noted that its "opinion [was] confined to the authority to license and [did] not address [a municipality's] regulatory or inspection authority granted by other statutes designed to assure rental premises remain safe, building and fire code compliant and structurally sound."

The trial court judges who considered the underlying matters in the present appeals dismissed plaintiffs' complaints after they found that the challenged ordinances were distinguishable from the ordinance invalidated in Timber Glen, as the fees were permissible under a municipality's regulatory powers in order to defray costs for the inspections or registration of rental units. The panel agreed with the trial court judges' conclusions but remanded for entry of an order directing that the reference to "license fees" be removed from the challenged ordinances to avoid any confusion.

By leave granted, the State appeals from the dismissal of second-degree false representations for a government contract, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-34(b), and second-degree theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4(a), charges in a multi-count indictment. The indictment alleged the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with defendants in reliance on their misrepresentations concerning their financial condition and ability to operate a solar power generation facility on a landfill. The ACO authorized defendants' operation of the landfill and collection of millions of dollars in tipping fees and anticipated revenue from the solar power generation facility. The ACO required that defendants deposit portions of the fees and revenue in escrow for remediation of the landfill, but they failed to do so after entering into the ACO.

The trial court dismissed the count alleging second-degree false representations for a government contract, finding the ACO was not a government contract within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-34(b) because it was not a contract for the procurement of goods and services. The trial court further dismissed the second-degree theft by deception charge, finding the contract did not have a value permitting the grading of the offense.

The court reverses, holding N.J.S.A. 2C:21-34(b)'s coverage is not limited to government contracts for goods and services, finding the ACO constitutes a government contract under the statute and determining there was sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury supporting the charge that defendants procured the ACO by making false representations to the NJDEP. The court also reverses the dismissal of the theft by deception charge, finding the evidence shows defendants procured contract rights – to operate the landfill and collect tipping fees and other revenue – that were worth millions of dollars and over which the NJDEP had a legal interest.

This is an appeal from the final decision of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that found appellant ineligible to receive two Superstorm Sandy recovery grants. The DCA awarded these grants to assist homeowners to remain in the county of their primary residence after the storm damaged their primary residence or to help them rebuild or repair their damaged primary residence. The DCA initially awarded appellant two grants totaling $85,000 based on his representation on the grant applications that his primary residence was a property he owned in Toms River.

The DCA thereafter found documentary evidence showing appellant's primary residence at the time of the storm was an apartment located in Hoboken and demanded that appellant refund the awards. The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Appellant argued the DCA should have applied the common law concept of domicile to determine what his primary residence was at the time of storm. The ALJ issued an Initial Decision rejecting appellant's argument. The DCA Commissioner accepted the ALJ's findings and conclusions of law without modification.

This court affirms the Commissioner's decision. These grants were created to assist a class of property owners whose "primary residence" was damaged or destroyed by Superstorm Sandy. The grant applications contain a list of specific documents that the DCA uses to make the eligibility determinations. Replacing the straightforward criteria for eligibility established by the DCA with the common law concept of domicile would compromise the essential purpose of these relief programs and inject needless ambiguity into the eligibility determination process.

Plaintiffs challenged rule changes by made by the board of trustee of a common-interest community, claiming they were incompetent and thus not protected by the business judgment rule. Plaintiffs cited a case stating: "Courts will not second-guess the actions of directors unless it appears that they are the result of fraud, dishonesty or incompetence." Papalexiou v. Tower W. Condo., 167 N.J. Super. 516, 527 (Ch. Div. 1979). The Appellate Division disapproves this statement in Papalexiou, and reiterates that the business judgment rule protects an authorized action by a board from judicial scrutiny unless the plaintiff shows that the challenged "action is fraudulent, self-dealing or unconscionable." E.g., Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150, 175 (2011). Plaintiffs failed to carry that initial burden.

Patricia A. Doherty & The Estate Of James Robert Doherty, Jr. v. Director, Division of Taxation, Docket No. 011661-2016; opinion by Cimino, J.T.C., decided August 17, 2018. For plaintiff - Robert E. Salad (Cooper,Levenson, attorneys); for defendant – Ramanjit K. Chawla (GurbirS. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Under the Gross Income Tax (GIT) Act, a resident of the State of New Jersey is taxed on 100% of income regardless of whether the income is generated in-state or out-of-state, or a combination thereof. Certain credits are allowed against taxes assessed on SCorporation income allocated to other states so long as that income is not allocated to New Jersey. Taxpayers sought a credit not only against income allocated to Pennsylvania, but also income allocated to New Jersey because Pennsylvania had allocated a greater share of the income to itself. Taxpayers’ argument was that New Jersey would still receive its share of taxes for income allocated to New Jersey since the Pennsylvania rate is lower. The Legislature set forth a method of credit calculation that plainly precludes a credit against income allocated to New Jersey.The Legislature did not intend to cede its authority to determine the method of allocation of income to Pennsylvania. As a result,taxpayers are only entitled to a credit for taxes that are not allocated to New Jersey in accordance with the allocation determined by New Jersey law.

Plaintiffs Valerie Benning and I'Asia Moreland were a same-sex couple who lived together with Moreland's two biological children, a boy who was nearly five years old and his two-year-old sister. On January 30, 2009, Benning was standing on the sidewalk holding the hand of the two-year-old girl, when a fire truck collided with a pickup truck, causing the pickup truck to strike and kill the child. Plaintiffs filed a civil action against the tortfeasors that included a claim by Benning for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980).

The Law Division granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Benning's Portee claim, finding she did not present sufficient evidence that she had an "intimate, familial relationship" with the two-year-old. This court denied Benning's motion for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted Benning's motion for leave to appeal and summarily remanded this matter for this court to decide this issue.

As ordered by the Supreme Court, this court's analysis is exclusively focused on the second element of the four elements of proof required to bring a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, as clarified and expanded in Dunphy v. Gregor, 136 N.J. 99 (1994). Viewing the evidence under the standard codified in Rule 4:46-2(c), this court holds that Benning presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that she and the two-year-old decedent had an intimate familial relationship at the time of the child's tragic death. This court reverses the Law Division's order dismissing Benning's claim as a matter of law and remands the matter for trial by jury.

The State appeals the trial court's dismissal of two Middlesex County indictments charging defendant with committing an armed robbery in Perth Amboy, conspiracy, and firearms possessory offenses. The court dismissed those charges because defendant had already pled guilty and been convicted in Monmouth County to having illegally possessed firearms in Asbury Park, weapons that were confiscated after the robbery in Perth Amboy occurred.

In particular, the victim of the robbery identified defendant as having brandished a silver or gray handgun and wearing a shoulder holster. Five days after the robbery, police officers executed a warrant for defendant's arrest issued by a judge in Middlesex County. The officers found defendant in a home in Monmouth County, along with two guns, one of which was silver or gray in color, and a shoulder holster.

The trial court reasoned that the Monmouth County and Middlesex County charges were sufficiently related to require them to be pursued in a single coordinated prosecution. Consequently, the court ruled the State's failure to combine the charges before the entry of the judgment of conviction in Monmouth barred his later prosecution in Middlesex.

The issues on appeal concern principles of mandatory joinder, double jeopardy, and continuing offenses. Applying those principles, the panel partially affirms the trial court's dismissal order with modification, reverses the order in part, and remand the matter for trial on certain counts of the indictments in Middlesex County. More specifically, and subject to certain caveats detailed in this opinion, the Middlesex prosecution on the armed robbery and conspiracy-to-rob counts is reinstated, but the weapons possession counts remain dismissed.

The Court affirms the panel’s approval of the judge’s jury instruction, albeit under a different standard of review, finding that the judge’s actions were harmless error. The Court reverses the imposition of sanctions. It would be unfair to impose sanctions in a case where the only means for a party to avoid sanctions would be to pay an amount greater than the jury’s verdict against that party, without advance notice of that consequence.

Quaker Valley had the right to erect hoop houses, but did not have the authority to permanently damage a wide swath of premier quality soil in doing so. Quaker Valley clearly violated the deed and the ARDA. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division, which overturned the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the SADC, is reversed. Those who own deed-restricted farmland must have well delineated guidelines that will permit them to make informed decisions about the permissible limits of their activities. It is only the extreme nature of this case that saves the present enforcement action.

Plaintiff and her late husband's estate allege that defendant, a Division of Child Protection and Permanency contractor, negligently placed a dangerous child in the therapeutic foster home that plaintiff and her husband operated, and failed to warn them of the child's history of dangerous behavior. During the fifteen months following his removal from the home for misbehavior, the child illegally returned three times, ultimately killing the husband during a burglary. Reversing summary judgment to defendant, the panel holds that defendant owed a duty to the foster parents to exercise reasonable care in placing the child in their home, and to reasonably disclose the child's background to enable them to make an informed decision whether to accept him. Whether defendant breached that duty, and particularly whether that breach proximately caused the harm that followed, are jury questions on the record presented when viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs.

Judge Sabatino filed a concurring opinion, suggesting the State might utilize stringent regulations, contractual provisions requiring notification, or other measures and policies to avoid future repetition of the fatal tragedy that occurred in this case.

The Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division panel, concurring with the panel’s dissenting judge that the MVR recordings were not “required by law” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, that they constitute criminal investigatory records under that provision, and that they are therefore not subject to disclosure under OPRA. The Court agrees with the panel’s conclusion that the recordings are not within OPRA’s “investigations in progress” provision, and that OPRA’s privacy clause does not exempt the recordings from disclosure. The Court remands the matter to the trial court for consideration of plaintiff’s claim of a common-law right of access to the MVR recordings.

The court addressed the arson statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1, and the rule against multiplicity, which prohibits the State from charging a defendant with multiple counts of the same crime, when that defendant's alleged conduct would only support a conviction for one count of that crime. The court held that when a defendant sets one fire, it is improper for the State to charge that defendant with multiple counts of arson based on the number of victims who were endangered by the fire. The court affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of second-degree arson, and for that conviction, the court affirmed the extended term sentence of twenty years subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The court reversed defendant's remaining ten arson convictions and vacated the sentences imposed for those convictions.

In this appeal, this court determines that a municipality may not condition the grant of tax abatements pursuant to the Long Term Tax Exemption Law (LTTEL), N.J.S.A. 40A:20-1 to -22, upon the redevelopers paying two million dollars through Prepayment Agreements. These payments were characterized as "a portion" of the Annual Service Charge the redeveloper would pay in lieu of property taxes after the project was completed. This court thus affirms the part of the judgment entered by the Law Division that declared the Prepayment Agreements ultra vires and ordered the municipality to refund the two million dollars to the redeveloper.

This court also determines that pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -73, a municipality may require the redeveloper to contribute to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) established by the municipality as a condition for granting a tax abatement under the LTTEL. N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-4.1. This court thus reverses the decision of the Law Division that ordered the City to return to the redeveloper a combined $710,769 initial contribution it made to the municipal AHTF, as a condition for the municipality granting the tax abatement under the LTTEL.

The trial court and Appellate Division correctly determined that a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) can be sustained by exposing children to a substantial risk of harm.

A court may reverse the Legislature’s invalidation of an agency rule or regulation pursuant to the Legislative Review Clause if (1) the Legislature has not complied with the procedural requirements of the Clause; (2) the Legislature has incorrectly asserted that the challenged rule or regulation is inconsistent with “the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the language of the statute which the rule or regulation is intended to implement,” N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6; or (3) the Legislature’s action violates a protection afforded by any other provision of the New Jersey Constitution, or a provision of the United States Constitution. To determine legislative intent, the court should rely exclusively on statutory language. It should not apply a presumption in favor of either the Legislature’s findings or the agency’s exercise of its rulemaking authority. Here, the Court finds no procedural defect or constitutional infirmity in the Legislature’s actions. The Legislature correctly determined that N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.2A conflicts with two provisions of the Civil Service Act.