Opinion Summaries

The court addressed two issues of first impression in New Jersey: (1) whether the swabbing of a defendant's hands for gunshot residue (GSR) constitutes a search under applicable constitutional doctrines, and if so, (2) whether such a search is valid under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. The court held that the swabbing of a defendant's hands for GSR is a search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution because it intruded upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. Balancing the intrusion of GSR testing on an individual's privacy against promoting vital governmental interests, the court further concluded that if an individual is lawfully arrested and in police custody, a delayed search of the arrestee's person for GSR evidence after the arrestee is transported to police headquarters is constitutionally permissible under the search incident to arrest exception as long as the delay itself and the scope of the search are objectively reasonable. In this case, given the existence of probable cause, the timeline, location, and limited intrusion involved in the testing, as well as the ready destructibility of GSR evidence, the court was satisfied that the search was objectively reasonable in time and scope to pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, the court reversed the Law Division's order suppressing the GSR evidence and remanded for further proceedings.

Third-party defendants are subject to the contribution claims filed against them by joint tortfeasors, unless there exists a right to a dismissal of the claims against them. Here, Fernandez fails to present a meritorious right to dismissal. Fernandez is therefore an active third-party defendant who must participate at trial.

This matter was before the court on defendant’s application to disestablish paternity, terminate child support, and vacate child support arrears. After genetic testing confirmed that defendant was not the child’s biological father, the court granted those parts of the application seeking to disestablish paternity and terminate ongoing support.

The court denied that part of defendant’s application seeking to vacate arrears. In particular, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the arrears could be vacated on equitable principles.

.

There was no abuse of discretion with respect to either the imposition of sanctions or the denial of reconsideration.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in that court’s opinion. The Court declines, however, to adopt the Appellate Division’s view that "the Compassionate Use Act intended to cause no impact on existing employment rights." See 458 N.J. Super. at 428.

Because the Kinship Legal Guardianship Act, N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -7, provides a permanent home for children, we affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Education that the children must now go to school where their kinship legal guardian lives. Neither the educational stability law, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-26; N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(a)(2), nor the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 to 1482, allows the children to remain enrolled in the school district where their biological mother is located.

A jury found defendant Kyle P. Brown guilty of third-degree arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b), and second-degree causing or risking widespread injury or damage, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2(a)(1), as a result of setting fire to, and causing an explosion of, his parked car in a sparsely-filled parking lot adjacent to his apartment building in the early morning hours.

The court holds the trial judge did not err in denying defendant's motion for acquittal of third-degree arson and second-degree causing or risking widespread injury or damage because there was sufficient evidence to establish that he caused a fire and explosion as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b), and an explosion as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2(a)(1).

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the court affirms the trial judge's ruling on all other issues.

Before depriving S.T. of the right to control the direction of her case and appointing a guardian to make legal decisions on her behalf, the court was required to conduct a hearing to determine whether she lacked "sufficient capacity to govern [herself] and manage [her] affairs" "by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability." See N.J.S.A. 3B:1-2; N.J.S.A. 3B:12-24; R. 4:86-4. At such a hearing, S.T. had the right to independent counsel. See R. 4:86-4(a)(7). In the absence of a guardianship hearing and a judicial finding by clear and convincing evidence that S.T. lacked the requisite mental capacity to decide how to proceed with her lawsuit, the court had no authority to accept a settlement against S.T.’s wishes.

In this appeal, the court examined whether a child's biological mother, who voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to allow her own mother, the child's maternal grandmother, to adopt the child, had standing as the child's legal sibling, per N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, to seek visitation rights against a non-relative adoptive mother. The court found the biological mother did not have standing under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.

The child was placed with his non-relative adoptive mother following the death of his maternal grandmother. Several years later, a Family Part judge granted the biological mother's request to visit with the child pending his adoption. The visits continued for approximately one year until the child's non-relative adoptive mother adopted the child and stopped the visits. The biological mother filed a complaint to reinstate her visits post-adoption and her complaint was dismissed by another Family Part judge without an evidentiary hearing.

In adhering to the legal precepts expressed in Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1 (2016) and In re D.C., 203 N.J. 545 (2010), the court determined the biological mother lacked standing as a legal sibling and was not entitled to visits under any other legal framework. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Family Part judge's dismissal of her complaint without an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant argued that unused prior service credits could be applied to reduce the period of mandatory parole supervision imposed by the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The court held that prior service credits could not be applied to reduce the period of parole supervision required under NERA.

Invoking its supervisory authority, the Court holds that if grand juries decline to indict on two prior occasions, the State must obtain advance approval from the Assignment Judge before it can submit the same case to a third grand jury. To decide whether to permit a third presentation, Assignment Judges should consider whether the State has new or additional evidence to present; the strength of the State’s evidence; and whether there has been any prosecutorial misconduct in the prior presentations. Based on the circumstances of this case, which did not violate defendant’s right to a fundamentally fair grand jury presentation, the Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division and declines to dismiss defendant’s indictment

In this appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification to three plaintiffs who asserted claims under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) of 2003, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 to 1681x, which prohibits retailers who accept credit or debit cards from printing more than the last five digits of the card number or expiration date upon any receipt. The complaint was dismissed as to all three plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants.

Plaintiff Ellen Baskin is a New Jersey resident who made a purchase at one of defendants' New Jersey stores and plaintiffs Kathleen O'Shea and Sandeep Trisal are New York residents who made purchases at defendants' New York stores.

The court agreed with the trial court that plaintiffs failed to establish that class action was warranted under Rule 4:32-1(b)(3). Specifically, plaintiffs only alleged technical violations of FACTA, and they did not assert they were victims of identity theft, fraud, or other harm. The court determined that individual actions in the small claims section would be a superior means to adjudicate claims of technical violations of FACTA. Thus, the superiority and predominance requirements of Rule 4:32-1(b)(2) were not met.

The court held that the New Jersey courts do not have general jurisdiction over defendants or specific jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the New York plaintiffs. However, the court determined that the trial court erred in dismissing Baskin's complaint because she is a New Jersey resident with an alleged FACTA claim emanating from a transaction at one of defendants' New Jersey stores. Therefore, the court reversed dismissal of Baskin's claims and reinstated the complaint as to her individual claims only.

Tax Court: Pella Realty, LLC v. Paterson City; Docket Nos. 002345-2017 and 002348-2017; opinion by Novin, J.T.C., decided February 27, 2020. For Pella Realty, LLC – Peter J. Zipp and Joseph G.Buro (Zipp & Tannenbaum, LLC, attorneys); for Paterson City –Michael T. Wilkos (Florio Kenny Raval, LLP, attorneys); for amicus curiae, Director, New Jersey Division of Taxation – Abiola G. Miles and Michelline Capistrano Foster (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

The court concluded that the Director of the New Jersey Division of Taxation’s regulation sanctioning use of an annual reassessment program, under N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(i), was intended for counties electing to adhere to the Real Property Assessment Demonstration Program, N.J.S.A. 54:1-101 to -106 (the “RPADP”). During the tax years at issue, Passaic County was not a "demonstration county" under the RPADP, therefore, Paterson’s implementation of an annual reassessment program was improper. Moreover, the court found that implementation of an annual reassessment program under N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(i) does not preclude application of the Freeze Act, N.J.S.A. 54:51A-8, as same does not constitute a complete reassessment of all real property in the taxing district. Finally, the court found that the Director inappropriately determined that Paterson’s annual reassessment program should receive credit for completion of a district-wide reassessment and recognition in the Director’s annual Certified Table of Equalized Valuations. Therefore, the court will conduct a plenary hearing to determine whether the annual reassessment program implemented by Paterson satisfied the district-wide reassessment criteria as expressed under established legal authority, N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(c), and the Application for Full Reassessment, Form AFR.

Barbara J. Boyd (defendant) and her husband William L. Boyd practiced law under the firm name, Boyd & Boyd. They did not have a partnership agreement and were never actually partners in the firm. After defendant left the firm and retired from the practice of law, William L. Boyd continued to practice under the firm name. The firm provided legal services to decedent, Renee M. Barbuto, and her estate later obtained a legal malpractice default judgment against the firm.

The estate claimed defendant was liable for the default judgment under N.J.S.A. 42:1A-20(a) and (b), which define the liability of purported partners under the Uniform Partnership Act (1996), N.J.S.A. 42:1A-1 to -56. At trial on the claim, plaintiff conceded defendant was not an actual partner in the law firm but argued defendant was liable because inclusion of her last name in the law firm's name constituted a representation she was a partner. Following presentation of plaintiff's evidence at trial, the court granted defendant's motion for dismissal. The trial court determined defendant is not liable for the firm's malpractice as a purported partner because plaintiff did not present any evidence decedent relied on a representation that defendant was a partner when decedent employed the firm to provide legal services.

The court affirms the dismissal. The plain language of N.J.S.A. 42:1A-20(a) and (b) imposes liability only where a plaintiff demonstrates reasonable reliance on a representation that the purported partner is a partner. The court rejects plaintiff's contention partnership liability may be imposed based on violations of RPC 7.5(c) and (d), which establish standards for inclusion of deceased and retired partner's names in law firm names, because RPC violations do not give rise to civil causes of action

This case addresses the question of whether a residential landlord’s failure to comply in all respects with N.J.S.A. 2A:50-70 (a tenant protection measure within the New Jersey Foreclosure Fairness Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:50-69 to -71) precludes the landlord’s right to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent when the tenant’s defense is that the rent has been paid to the former landlord because the tenant was unaware of the existence of the new landlord. The court answered the question in the affirmative.

In February 2017, defendant was charged with the crime of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in a quantity greater than twenty-five pounds and was released on home arrest with electronic monitoring (PML3+EM). On December 17, 2018, defendant entered a guilty plea to count one of the indictment, as amended to a second-degree offense. In consideration for the guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend a maximum sentence of a five-year state prison term. Defendant requested an extended sentencing date to “put his life in order” before commencing the custodial term. The court set April 5, 2019, as the sentence date and, in its discretion, continued defendant on pretrial release.

Defendant retained new counsel and on June 10, 2019, present counsel for defendant filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, requesting that the sentence be adjourned and that he continue free on pretrial release, pending the return of the motion. Defendant argued that pursuant to the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJR), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26, he was entitled to remain on release until sentencing or the resolution of the motion to vacate the plea. The court denied the request to remain free, holding that CJR did not vest defendant with any substantive or procedural grounds to remain free on pretrial release after entering a plea of guilty. Instead, in its discretion, the court remanded defendant pending same.

The matter presents the novel issue as to whether a defendant is entitled to continue pretrial release pursuant to CJR.

The deemer statute does not incorporate by reference the basic policy’s BI level for insurers, like GEICO, to which the second sentence of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 applies. From the perspective of the insurers’ obligation, the required compulsory insurance liability limits remain $15,000/$30,000. As to the equal protection claim, New Jersey insureds are the ones who have a choice to purchase less than the presumptive minimum BI amount. The obligation of in-state insurers to offer and provide that minimum is the same as the obligation imposed under the deemer statute’s second sentence on authorized insurers writing an out-of-state policy. The equal protection claim therefore falls flat.

Tax Court: Stanard v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, Docket No. 008149-2018; opinion by Fiamingo, J.T.C., decided February 24, 2020. For plaintiff - Joseph Kernen and Ellis L. Reemer (DLA Piper, LLP, attorneys); for defendant – Ramanjit K. Chawla (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Held: Plaintiffs appealed the final determination of the defendant ("Director") disallowing an offset of partnership income with a partnership loss distributed to a single-member limited liability company ("LLC") owned by plaintiff husband, under N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1(k). The Director determined that the net income of the single member LLC, inclusive of the partnership loss at issue, constituted net profits from business and must be reported under N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1(b). The court found that by law, a single-member LLC is treated as a disregarded entity and the member is treated as the direct owner of the assets of the LLC for income tax purposes under N.J.S.A. 42:2C-92(b). The court further found that even if the single-member LLC is treated as a sole proprietorship for income tax purposes, the Director had misapplied his regulations in determining the net profits from business of the single-member LLC for the tax year under review. The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and denied the Director’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court granted defendants leave to appeal from orders that denied their request to declare they were not statutorily ineligible for Drug Court and to process their applications. The judge accepted that recent revisions to the Drug Court Manual (the 2019 Manual ) preserved two "tracks" for entry into the program: one, pursuant to special probation, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14; and a second, as a general condition of probation, N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1. See, e.g., State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421 (2007).

Defendants were not eligible for special probation, because they faced current charges that were not "subject to a presumption of incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility[.]" N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a). Additionally, defendants were previously convicted of crimes that made them ineligible pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(6), (7). The judge accepted the State's argument that although there were two tracks for entry into Drug Court, the 2019 Manual created one uniform standard for eligibility under both tracks, specifically, that an applicant was legally ineligible if he failed to meet the criteria in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14.

The Court reversed, concluding that the full text of the 2019 Manual did not support the State's interpretation, which was contrary to the clear intention, both legislatively and administratively, to broaden eligibility for Drug Court.

Defendant Frank Campione, a licensed physician assistant, who was federally registered to prescribe opioid medications, was indicted on charges of the unlawful practice of medicine, distribution of a controlled dangerous substance to patients, and possession of prohibited weapons. The State alleged that Campione misrepresented himself as a physician to patients, improperly wrote prescriptions in non-traditional settings, such as vehicles and restaurants, and wrote prescriptions for opioid medications that were not medically necessary. Defendant Howard Katz, a licensed physician who agreed to serve as Campione's supervising physician, was charged with unlawful practice of medicine.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the entire indictment was granted by the motion court. The motion court also granted defendants' motion for discovery of the identity, opinions, and reports of the experts consulted by the State post-dismissal of the indictment.

The court affirmed the dismissal of all charges against Katz. The State presented no evidence to the grand jury that Katz participated in Campione's alleged acts of improperly holding himself out as a physician to patients.

The court also affirmed the dismissal of the counts alleging the unlawful practice of medicine based on Campione's alleged failure to practice under the direct supervision of a physician and failure to provide notice of his employment to the State Board of Medical Examiners. Such conduct involves professional misconduct punishable by civil penalties, not criminal acts.

Similarly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the count charging defendants with conspiring to commit the unlawful practice of medicine. Because Campione was a licensed physician assistant who was registered to prescribe opioid medications and Katz was a licensed physician, violating the Physician Assistant Licensing Act (PALA), N.J.S.A. 45:9-27.10 to .28, is professional misconduct punishable by civil penalties, not criminal conduct under our Criminal Code. Thus, conspiring to violate PALA is not a crime

The court reversed the dismissal of the weapons counts because the State was not precluded from introducing evidence of the possession of the prohibited weapons in a subsequent grand jury proceeding that was not introduced during the first presentment.

The court also reversed the order compelling the State to provide postdismissal discovery of the State's experts. Because the indictment was dismissed in its entirety, the criminal action was no longer pending.Accordingly, the discovery afforded under Rule 3:13-3(b)(1) does not apply even though defendant Campione still faced a civil forfeiture action and administrative disciplinary proceedings brought by the Board of Medical Examiners.