Opinion Summaries

In a prior appeal, State v. Kosch, 444 N.J. Super. 368 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 227 N.J. 369 (2016), the court vacated three of defendants' nine theft convictions and remanded for a new trial on those three theft-of-immovable-property counts; the court also held that "once those three counts are finally adjudicated, defendant should be resentenced on all " in light of potential merger issues, id. at 392-93. Without disposing of the three counts, which still remain unadjudicated, the judge reshaped the prior sentence and imposed the same aggregate prison term as before. Defendant appealed and the court reversed. Although the court recognized the new judgment was not a final order, the court granted leave to appeal out of time and reversed because the trial judge failed to comply with the "peremptory duty to obey" our mandate "precisely as it [was] written"; that mandate unambiguously precluded resentencing without an adjudication of the theft-of-immovable-property counts.

This appeal poses the legal question of whether N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.4, a statute that became effective in 1988, precludes a spouse's unsecured creditor from obtaining the forced partition of real property the spouse and his non-debtor spouse own together as tenants by the entirety. The panel affirms the trial court's ruling that the statute prohibits such non-consensual partition. The statute supersedes and nullifies earlier case law, such as Newman v. Chase, 70 N.J. 254, 262 (1976), which had allowed such a creditor's remedy in certain equitable circumstances.

Because significant questions exist concerning the extent of the notice actually provided, either by the Commissions or through their agents to active employees, former employees, and retirees, a hearing is necessary. The hearing is to be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in this opinion and, at the hearing, the adequacy of the content of the notice can be raised.

The New Jersey Education Association challenged regulations pertaining to the disability retirement process for various State retirement systems. In upholding most of the regulations – except those requiring applicants to pay for subsequent independent medical examinations and related addenda – this court maintained the requirement that eligibility for disability retirement benefits requires members to show that they cannot work due to a disability.

In these appeals, consolidated for our opinion, plaintiff sued defendants under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCAA), N.J.S.A. 4:22-11.1 to -60, to recover civil penalties for acts that he contended constituted animal cruelty under its provisions. Plaintiff lacked standing to sue in his individual capacity and the cases were dismissed. He contends the complaints were filed as qui tam actions under N.J.S.A. 4:22-26 which provided, in relevant part, that a person who violates the PCAA shall pay a civil penalty according to a schedule in the statute "to be sued for and recovered, with costs, in a civil action by any person in the name of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals".

We decline to interpret N.J.S.A. 4:22-26 as authorizing private citizens, who otherwise would not have standing, to sue for civil penalties under the PCAA in qui tam actions against other parties, who they alleged may have committed acts of animal cruelty. The language relied on by plaintiff does not signal authority for qui tam litigation in light of the PCAA's other provisions nor was it supported by the legislative history or case law. We affirm the dismissal of these cases for lack of standing

The single publication rule applies to an internet article. However, if a material and substantive change is made to the article’s defamatory content, then the modified article will constitute a republication, restarting the statute of limitations. In this case, there are genuine issues of disputed fact concerning whether Adelman made a material and substantive change to the original article, and the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the defamation action based on the single publication rule. However, the modified article is entitled to the protection of the fair report privilege. The article is a full, fair, and accurate recitation of a court-filed complaint. The trial court properly dismissed the defamation action, and on that basis the Court affirms the Appellate Division’s judgment

The New Jersey Division Of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), and the Law Guardian on behalf of the two young children, appeal from the Family Part's order denying termination of parental rights following an extended eighteen-month trial at which twelve witnesses testified and hundreds of exhibits were admitted into evidence. This appeal involves the termination of parental rights of T.D., a mother suffering from multiple sclerosis and R.C., the father of her two youngest children, born in 2012 and 2014, and removed from the care of their parents shortly after birth. The trial judge found, in particular, that the Division did not provide meaningful services to the mother, who uses a wheelchair. Considering the limited standard of review of a decision not to terminate parental rights, we affirm.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Leone’s majority opinion

Judicial review is premature because factual disputes require resolution before the Secretary can make a properly informed decision on the grant applications. Because an informed administrative decision could not have been made without the benefit of a proper record, the matter is remanded to the Secretary, in order that a contested case proceeding be conducted prior to the ultimate administrative decision of the Secretary concerning the challenged grants

The Court now revises Rule 3:4A(b)(5) to make clear that a recommendation against a defendant’s pretrial release that is based only on the type of offense charged cannot justify detention by itself unless the recommendation is based on one of two presumptions in the statute. See N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(b). A pending charge is a charge that has a future pre-disposition related court date or is pending presentation to the grand jury, or has not been disposed of due to the defendant’s failure to appear pending trial or sentencing, or that is in some form of deferred status.

The Court now revises Rule 3:4A(b)(5) to make clear that a recommendation against a defendant’s pretrial release that is based only on the type of offense charged cannot justify detention by itself unless the recommendation is based on one of two presumptions in the statute. See N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(b). A pending charge is a charge that has a future pre-disposition related court date or is pending presentation to the grand jury, or has not been disposed of due to the defendant’s failure to appear pending trial or sentencing, or that is in some form of deferred status.

This court consolidates these two insurance coverage cases for purposes of this opinion. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The motion judge reserved decision at the conclusion of oral argument and entered orders that same day that granted the insurers' motions for summary judgment and denied the insureds' cross-motions. The judge did not issue a written opinion or oral decision, nor make factual findings or conclusions of law as required by Rule 1:7-4(a). In a Final Judgment entered a month later, the judge dismissed the insureds' complaints with prejudice "for the reasons set forth in [the insurers'] motion papers."

Although the standard of review from the grant or denial of summary judgment is de novo, the function of an appellate court is to review the decision of the trial court, not to decide the motion tabula rasa. The requirements of Rule 1:7-4(a) are unambiguous and cannot be carried out by the motion judge by a nebulous allusion to "the reasons set forth in defendant[s]' motion papers." Reversed and remanded.

Under the circumstances of this case, aggravated assault is, at most, a related offense of the State’s robbery charge. The trial court had no obligation to charge the jury sua sponte on aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense of the State’s robbery charge.

Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2001, filed his first post-conviction relief petition in 2007, and filed his second petition in 2015. The Appellate Division ruled defendant's second petition was untimely under Rule 3:22-12's time limits. Those limits cannot be relaxed by invoking Rule 1:1-2. In 2009, the Supreme Court amended Rule 1:3-4(c) to prohibit enlargement of the time limits in Rule 3:22-12, and added Rule 3:22-12(c) prohibiting relaxation except as provided by Rule 3:22-12 itself. Moreover, in 2010, the Supreme Court amended Rule 3:22-4(b) and Rule 3:22-12(a)(2) to require second petitions to be filed within one year of specified events. Because that time limit applies "notwithstanding any other provision of this rule," it cannot be relaxed by showing excusable neglect and a fundamental injustice, as permitted for first petitions under the 2010 amendment. These amendments to the procedural rules of court apply to previously-convicted defendant, who had no vested right to file a petition fourteen years out of time.

In this case, we affirm the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's qui tam complaint which alleged defendant Steven Lonegan violated the New Jersey False Claims Act (FCA), N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-1 to -18, by submitting a false statement in a request for public campaign funds. Although the trial court dismissed on other grounds, we affirm the grant of summary judgment because we hold plaintiff lacks standing to bring the FCA complaint. We conclude the record clearly shows plaintiff is not the original source of the information supporting the allegations in his complaint.

In Pugliese v. State-Operated School District of City of Newark, 440 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2015), the court vacated and remanded for reconsideration anew an arbitrator's award sustaining tenure charges against appellants. In this appeal, the court had to construe N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 and determine what impact its decision to remand had on the suspended educators' entitlement to back pay while the remand was pending. The statute provides for an educator's suspension without pay for 120 days or until the issuance of a final determination of the disputed tenure charges, whichever is sooner. If the matter is not resolved within 120 days, compensation must resume until a determination is reached. In this case, the court concluded that the entitlement to compensation after 120 days continues under the statute despite the fact there was an initial award terminating employment that was vacated and remanded, without a dismissal of the tenure charges.

N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a) permits imposition of an extended prison term when a defendant was convicted of at least two separate prior crimes but only if "the latest" of those crimes was committed or the defendant's "last release from confinement" occurred – "whichever is later" – within ten years of the charged crime. Because the last of defendant's prior crimes was committed in Florida ten years and three weeks before the crime charged here, and because defendant was not "confined" – he was sentenced in Florida to a probationary term and being on probation is not the same as being "confined" – the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including development of the State's late claim that the consequences of defendant's violation of the Florida probationary term within the ten-year period permits a finding of "confinement" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).

In these appeals, the court reviewed orders compelling arbitration because the automobile sales contracts executed by plaintiffs included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes. Although the record revealed disputed facts about contract-formation issues that the trial courts must be resolved before arbitration may be compelled, the court also recognized there was no dispute that the parties mutually agreed to rescind those sales contracts. Consequently, among other things, the court held that the trial judges erred in compelling arbitration of any claims relating to the agreements to rescind, which did not contain arbitration provisions. The orders under review were reversed and both cases remanded for trial court proceedings to determine, among other things, whether plaintiffs' claims were based on the sales contracts or on the agreements to rescind.

The amendment to count two of defendant’s indictment was a violation of defendant’s right to grand jury presentment under the New Jersey Constitution. Defendant waived his right to object to the map’s authentication.

In these appeals, the court reviewed orders compelling arbitration because the automobile sales contracts executed by plaintiffs included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes. Although the record revealed disputed facts about contract-formation issues that the trial courts must be resolved before arbitration may be compelled, the court also recognized there was no dispute that the parties mutually agreed to rescind those sales contracts. Consequently, among other things, the court held that the trial judges erred in compelling arbitration of any claims relating to the agreements to rescind, which did not contain arbitration provisions. The orders under review were reversed and both cases remanded for trial court proceedings to determine, among other things, whether plaintiffs' claims were based on the sales contracts or on the agreements to rescind