Opinion Summaries

The proper analysis for determining whether the State can obtain this physical evidence rests within the principles of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Neither the Fifth nor the Sixth Amendment would preclude issuing a valid search warrant for the bullet in this case, and the trial court should have determined whether there exists probable cause on which to issue such a warrant.

The sought-after affidavit is physical evidence of the crimes of witness tampering and kidnapping for which defendant and others have been charged. It is therefore subject to reciprocal discovery under Rule 3:3-13(b)(2)(B) and (D).

          Along with another offense, a grand jury indicted defendant on first-degree unlawful possession of a weapon under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j).  Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to first-degree unlawful possession of a weapon.  At sentencing, defendant argued N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) was not subject to the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c), which requires a mandatory period of parole ineligibility because N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c) did not enumerate N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j).  The sentencing judge disagreed and held N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) is a grading statute, and sentenced defendant to a ten-year sentence with a five-year period of parole ineligibility, pursuant to the Graves Act.

          Defendant's appeal was initially heard on the court's sentencing oral argument calendar.  It was then transferred to the plenary calendar given the question of law raised, and to resolve differing interpretations of the Graves Act and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) in unpublished opinions, and reported uneven practices in the trial courts.  The central question on appeal was whether N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) is a substantive offense not subject to the Graves Act or whether N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) acts as a grading statute, thereby enhancing the penalty, which is subject to the Graves Act.

          The court concluded N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) is not a separate offense but instead a grading statute that is subject to the Graves Act penalty.  Reading the statute to the contrary would lead to an absurd result because a person convicted of a first-degree unlawful weapons offense could serve less time than a person convicted of a lesser-degree offense by virtue of parole eligibility.  The court concluded the more sensible reading of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) was as a grading statute and therefore affirmed defendant's sentence.

Plaintiffs first sued two pharmaceutical companies in federal court in Texas asserting claims under the federal False Claims Act and the New Jersey False Claims Act (NJFC Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-1 to -18.  After the claims under the NJFC Act were dismissed without prejudice, plaintiffs sued the same pharmaceutical companies in New Jersey re-asserting the NJFC Act claims.   Because the allegations in plaintiffs' complaints had previously been publicly disclosed and because plaintiffs were not the original source of that information, the court holds that plaintiffs' complaints were properly dismissed under the public disclosure bar of the NJFC Act.  See N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-9(c).

This appeal requires us to determine whether defendant Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA), an out-of-state non-profit national youth organization, is subject to the specific personal jurisdiction of our state courts in a lawsuit pertaining to the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiffs by a counselor employed by defendant Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County (Hudson County BGC), a New Jersey non-profit youth member organization affiliated with BGCA. 

The motion judge found specific personal jurisdiction over BGCA regarding plaintiffs' sexual abuse claims.  The court disagrees and reverses. 

Jurisdictional discovery revealed BGCA had no influence or control over Hudson County BGC's hiring, training, or supervision of the counselor.  Consequently, our state courts have no specific personal jurisdiction over BGCA in this matter because BGCA did not purposefully avail itself of benefits in or from New Jersey.

In State v. Witt, our Supreme Court held police cannot conduct a search pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement once a vehicle has been towed away and impounded.  223 N.J. 409, 448-49 (2015).  John's Law generally requires police to impound a vehicle for at least twelve hours when the driver is arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI).  This case addresses the novel question of whether police may conduct a search under the automobile exception when they are required to impound a vehicle pursuant to John's Law, but the vehicle has yet to be removed from the scene of the stop.

The trial judge suppressed a handgun found under the front passenger seat, reasoning that because the officers were required to impound the vehicle, they were also required to obtain a search warrant even though the search occurred roadside.  After considering the plain text and rationale of Witt, the court reverses the suppression order, holding the inherent exigency justifying a warrantless search at the scene continues to exist so long as the detained vehicle remains at the location of the stop.  The court reasons the inherent exigency is not abated by the fact the vehicle will eventually be removed from the scene.  Nor is such exigency abated when the decision is made to remove the vehicle, regardless of whether the decision is made in the exercise of police discretion or in compliance with a statutory impoundment mandate.  The court concludes the authority to conduct an automobile-exception search lapses only after the vehicle has been removed to a secure location, not in anticipation of such removal.  So long as police satisfy the foundational requirements of probable cause, spontaneity, and unforeseeability, a contemporaneous on-the-spot search is permitted regardless of the ultimate disposition of the vehicle.  Accordingly, the court declines to create a new bright-line rule making vehicles subject to John's Law categorically ineligible for an on-scene search under the automobile exception.

In this appeal the court addresses whether an entire county prosecutor's office must be recused from a criminal prosecution when the county prosecutor has a personal, disqualifying conflict.  The court holds that so long as the prosecutor has been completely screened from and has no oversight of the matter, the prosecutor's office should not be disqualified.  Accordingly, the court affirms the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to disqualify the entire Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office from continuing to prosecute defendant and multiple co-defendants in this criminal matter.

THIRD PARTY APPEALS; TRANSFERS OF MATTERS NOT COGNIZABLE IN TAX COURT TO LAW DIVISION

Tax Court:  Westerhold v. Toms River Township, Docket Nos. 008087-2022, 007534-2023, 009583-2022, 007535-2023;  Westerhold v. Brick Township, Docket Nos. 010281-2020, 010282-2020, 008086-2022, 007536-2023, 008085-2022, 007532-2023, opinion by Fiamingo, J.T.C., decided February 20, 2024.  For plaintiffs - Paul Tannenbaum, Peter Zipp, Michael Kurpiewski (Zipp & Tannenbaum, attorneys).  For defendant, Toms River Township – Kelsey A. McGuckin-Anthony (Dasti, Murphy, Ulaky, Loutsouris & Connor, attorneys); for defendant, Brick Township – Scott W. Kenneally (Starkey, Kelly, Kenneally, Cunningham, et al., attorneys). 

HELD:  Plaintiffs’ complaints contesting the local property tax assessments of third parties filed after February 21, 2021, were not cognizable in the Tax Court as a result of amendment to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 eliminating subject matter jurisdiction over such appeals in the County Boards of Taxation and the Tax Court; third party tax appeals filed in the Tax Court after February 21, 2021, should be transferred to the Law Division pursuant to R.1:13-4, to be heard as actions in lieu of prerogative writs, per R. 4:69. 

(11 pages)
 

In this case the court is asked to answer three questions:  first, whether a governmental body, serving as a Redevelopment Agency, is obligated to apply electric vehicle ("EV") parking credits, as required under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-66.20 ("the EV statute"), when determining a concept plan's consistency with a redevelopment plan adopted pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law ("LRHL") (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -89); second, under section (f) of the EV statute, when applying EV credits, how the credits are to be rounded up; and last, whether a rounded-up EV credit may reduce the total required parking by more than the ten percent limit set forth under section (e) of the EV statute.

The court held that EV credits are to be applied when determining a concept plan's consistency with a redevelopment plan.  Otherwise, a plan that was confirmed as consistent by the Borough would not be the same as the one to be potentially approved at time of preliminary site plan approval.  The court also concluded that when applying EV credits to the total number of calculated spaces and that number includes any decimal, based on the plain language of the statute, the calculation must be rounded up to the next whole parking spot.  However, also based on the plain language of the statute, the court rejected the contention that a rounded-up EV credit can reduce the total required parking by more than the ten percent limit set forth under section (e) of the EV statute, which is more specific than section (f) and therefore controls.

Applying these principles, the court affirmed the Law Division's denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant of defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

In this medical malpractice action, the court granted defendant Perry Loesberg, M.D. leave to appeal Law Division's order's denying his motions to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint due to their failure to serve an affidavit of merit (AOM) within 120 days of the filing of defendant's answer in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.  The court affirms, concluding the orders were supported by the record because there were extraordinary circumstances warranting an extension of the AOM 120-day filing deadline. 

Prior to defendant being named in the amended complaint, a court order granted plaintiff's motion to waive the filing of an AOM as to the then-named defendants.  The lack of a Ferreira conference after defendant answered the amended complaint, coupled with the prior court order and defendant's discovery response failure to raise the lack of an AOM as a defense, constituted "an almost perfect storm" of events that warrant affording plaintiff additional time to submit an AOM.  See A.T. v. Cohen, 231 N.J. 337, 350 (2017).  A Ferreira conference should have been conducted to bring the parties together to address the applicability of the AOM waiver order on the claims against the newly-added defendant.  Permitting plaintiff to file an AOM outside the 120-day statutory deadline and denying defendant's motions to dismiss prevents an injustice.

Plaintiff, a tenured professor, was fired after a university received a series of student complaints.  The university issued charges against plaintiff and conducted dismissal proceedings pursuant to its faculty handbook, a document which, among other things, detailed the process for removing a tenured professor.  The university's board of trustees found by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff had engaged in willful misconduct and terminated his employment.

Plaintiff filed suit, alleging the board failed to establish adequate cause for termination by clear and convincing evidence.  The trial court granted the board's motion for summary judgment, finding the board was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in its decision to terminate plaintiff in accordance with the agreed-upon guidelines established in the faculty handbook.

After a de novo review of the trial court's summary judgment order, the court affirmed, holding that the administrative agency standard of review used to analyze the internal decision-making of public universities applied to a private university's termination of a tenured professor.

N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 provides the basis to refer a case to arbitration but does not limit an arbitrator’s authority to impose penalties. The award here is reinstated.

In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, the court was asked to consider whether N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10)— from the time of its enactment in 2010—provided an exemption for court reporters under the Unemployment Compensation Law ("UCL"), N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71, or whether court reporters must still establish a Federal Unemployment Tax Act ("FUTA") exemption pursuant N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(1)(G).  The court determined N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) does provide such an exemption and there is no requirement for court reporters to establish a FUTA exemption.

The court noted the express language of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) provides that services performed by court reporters "shall not be deemed to be employment subject" to the UCL.  The court presumed the Legislature understood the implications of removing court reporters from N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y) and the corresponding FUTA mandate and placing the amendment in a different section.  The DOL asserted there were no scenarios in which the new statute, N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10), would apply to court reporters in a manner distinct from the operation of the prior exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y).  The court rejected that interpretation, which would have rendered N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) meaningless because the amended statute must be read in harmony with N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y) and the rest of the statute.  The court further determined the Legislature was fully aware of the prior requirement for court reporters to establish a FUTA exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y), which is why it amended the statute to remove the requirement for a FUTA exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10).

The court noted that although a sensible reading of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) provides an exemption for court reporters, to the extent the statutory language resulted in more than one reasonable interpretation, the legislative history unequivocally established the Legislature intended to dispense with the requirement to establish a FUTA exemption.  Accordingly, the court reversed the Commissioner's holding with respect to the applicability of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) and concluded petitioners are exempt from the time of the enactment of the statute in 2010.

         The court granted defendant leave to appeal from two orders entered by the Family Part, which denied a motion to amend his answer to include a counterclaim for divorce and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.  On appeal, the court reversed both orders.

          The court concluded defendant should have been permitted to amend to include a counterclaim because discovery was not concluded, there was no trial date, and the interest of justice required it.  The proposed counterclaim alleged defendant learned of conduct between plaintiff and a third party, which constituted grounds for divorce based on irreconcilable differences and extreme cruelty.  Moreover, based on defendant's proposed pleading and extant business litigation in the Law Division involving the parties and the third party, the case appeared to be complex in that defendant's counterclaim sounded in claims against plaintiff for:  dissipation, marital fault, and bad faith.

         Plaintiff argued to the trial court and on appeal that Rule 5:4-2(e) barred defendant's ability to amend the answer to include incidents that occurred during the marriage because defendant knew about the claims and failed to file a counterclaim with his initial answer.  The court concluded Rule 5:4-2(e) was inapplicable because it applies when a party seeks to amend an already existing counterclaim.  Moreover, the court harmonized Rule 5:4-2(d) and (e) with Rule 4:9-1 and held the amendment of Family Part pleadings are subject to the liberal interest of justice standard in Rule 4:9-1, and courts should permit a party to amend where the request is timely, and not futile, frivolous, or harassing. 

In this appeal, the court held that the rule announced in State v. Smith, 251 N.J. 244, 253 (2022), that "reasonable and articulable suspicion of a tinted windows violation arises only when a vehicle's front windshield or front side windows are so darkly tinted that police cannot clearly see people or articles within the car," should be afforded pipeline retroactivity.  The court also determined a defendant who had not filed a notice of appeal when a retroactive decision was issued, but was subsequently granted leave to file as within time under Rule 2:4-4 and State v. Molina, 187 N.J. 531, 535-36 (2006), is deemed within the "pipeline" for retroactivity purposes.

In this appeal, the court considered whether a Remediation in Progress waiver (RIP waiver) issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) conveys a property interest to the recipient that is constitutionally protected by the right to due process.  The court concluded it does not.

The owner or operator of an industrial establishment is subject to the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) when they cease operations or transfer ownership or operation of the industrial establishment.  N.J.S.A. 13:1K-9(a).  Before doing so, the ISRA requires the owner or operator of an industrial establishment to remediate its industrial establishment and obtain a final remediation document.  N.J.S.A. 13:1K-9(b).  To expedite transfers and cessations of contaminated industrial sites, the ISRA permits alternatives to obtaining a final remediation document prior to the cessation of operations or transfer of property, including an RIP waiver.  N.J.A.C. 7:26B‑5.4.  An RIP waiver allows the owner or operator of an industrial establishment to apply to NJDEP to close or transfer ownership or operations, provided that the industrial establishment is already in the process of remediation and specific requirements are met.  N.J.S.A. 13:1K‑11.5; N.J.A.C. 7:26B-5.4.

An RIP waiver is contingent on remediation being in progress; if remediation falls out of compliance, the RIP waiver applicant no longer qualifies for the suspension under N.J.S.A. 13:1K-11.5, and NJDEP may rescind the RIP waiver.

Clarios, LLC, appealed from a decision by NJDEP to deny its request for an adjudicatory hearing concerning NJDEP's decision to rescind Clarios's RIP waiver for the premises at issue, 760 Jersey Avenue, New Brunswick.  Clarios argued NJDEP's grant of the RIP waiver in 2007 created a property interest protected by a right to due process in that the RIP waiver operates like a license—well-recognized to be in the nature of a property right—that permits the receiving party to conduct certain activities and exempts it from obligations subject to the State's stipulations.

The court rejected Clarios's assertion.  The only benefit conferred by the RIP waiver is that the owner or operator may effect such close of operations or transfer of ownership prior to "obtaining departmental approval of a remedial action workplan or a negative declaration or without the approval of a remediation agreement."  N.J.S.A. 13:1K‑11.5(a).  The RIP waiver does not suspend the need to remediate the industrial establishment.  It waives only the requirement to provide for remediation before the close of operations or the transfer of ownership.  In addition, the regulation that provides for the issuance of RIP waivers explicitly limits the authority of the waiver to relieve the recipient of "the obligations to remediate the industrial establishment pursuant to ISRA . . . and any other applicable law."  N.J.A.C. 7:26B-1.8(b).

          In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, the court addresses whether a New Jersey court may consider a motion to terminate the registration requirements of an individual subject to Megan's Law[1] in New Jersey but residing in another state.  The court holds that although a New Jersey court may have jurisdiction to decide the motion, it must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the registrant has standing to bring the motion. 

          J.R. committed a sex offense in 1993 that subjected him to Megan's Law in New Jersey.  Upon moving to Montana in 2021, J.R. was subject to registration there because Montana statute requires registration for individuals who committed a sexual offense in another state for which they were required to register.  He then filed a motion to terminate his registration obligation in New Jersey pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f).

          The court agrees with the Megan's Law judge that J.R. no longer had a registration obligation in New Jersey and his obligation in Montana was dependent on his prior conviction in New Jersey, which would remain regardless of the outcome of the motion.  The court rejects J.R.'s contention that he continued to have a Megan's Law "status" in New Jersey.  He neither faced harm from the denial of the motion nor could he benefit from the granting of the motion because it would not alter his registration obligation in Montana.  Because he was not suffering a harm that a New Jersey court could address, J.R. lacked standing to have a New Jersey court decide his motion, and we affirm the Megan's Law judge's decision.

          Because registration requirements vary across the country, there may be instances where a registrant's obligation to register in another jurisdiction would be impacted by the outcome of a motion to terminate in New Jersey.  Therefore, a court must examine the legislative scheme in the jurisdiction where the registrant resides to determine whether the motion presents a justiciable controversy that amounts to standing.

[1]  N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23.

In this matter, arising out of a failure to accommodate and discrimination action under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50, a jury returned a verdict for plaintiff awarding her compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.  On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of liability and the compensatory damage award but remanded for further proceedings on the amount of punitive damages, and specifically, for substantial consideration of the factors discussed by our Supreme Court in Baker v. National State Bank, 161 N.J. 220 (1999), and the United States Supreme Court in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). 

The Supreme Court granted defendant's petition for certification and modified this court's remand instructions.  The Court held that when reviewing a punitive damages award against a public entity, a trial court must not only consider the Baker/BMW factors, but also needs to apply heightened scrutiny as required under Lockley v. State, Department of Corrections, 177 N.J. 413 (2003).

On remand, the trial court concluded the punitive damages award was "reasonable" and "comport[ed] with due process."

In the present appeal, the court established a hybrid standard of review when considering an award of punitive damages against a public entity.  The court should accord a deferential standard of review to a judge's determination of whether the jury's punitive damages award is "reasonable" and "justified in the circumstances of the case" under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.14(a).  However, when a party challenges the punitive damages award on constitutional due process grounds, the court should review the trial court's decision as to the amount of the punitive damage award de novo. 

After considering the Baker/BMW factors using the heightened scrutiny required under Lockley, we concluded the punitive damages award was not unreasonable or disproportionate to the harm caused by defendant's upper management representatives in their disregard of the LAD.  Although mindful the source of the damages award is public funds, the court concluded the award was necessary to deter future unlawful conduct and to encourage high-level officials to conform their behavior.

LOCAL PROPERTY TAX – VETERAN’S EXEMPTION – ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Tax Court: Alemany v. Township of Marlboro, Docket No. 007209-2023; opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided January 29, 2024.  For plaintiff - Sheryl Alemany, self-represented; for defendant - Lani M. Lombardi, Esq. (Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys).

HELD: Plaintiff, who served in the National Guard, was declared 100% and permanently disabled due to a service-connected disability by the federal Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and was honorably released by the U.S. Army.  Defendant denied local property tax exemption for her residence under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 because federal Form DD-214 stated that she was released from “active duty training” and the pre-2019 precedent held that veterans training in the National Guards were not entitled to the exemption.  The court found that the New Jersey Constitution and N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 require only “active service” in the Army; the Form DD-214 evidenced that plaintiff was in active service with the U.S. Army National Guard; and full-time National Guard duty is considered as “active service” under the federal military law; therefore, plaintiff qualified for the exemption.  The term “active duty training” in Form DD-214 cannot be viewed in a vacuum and solely control determination of plaintiff’s qualification for the exemption.

(10 pages) 
 

Ocean Walk has not pled facts supporting a conclusion that its business losses were caused by a “direct physical loss” or “direct physical . . . damage” under the policy language. And even if Ocean Walk had pled facts supporting a finding of a covered “loss” or “damage,” the losses it alleges are excluded from coverage by the policies’ contamination exclusion.