Published Appellate Court Opinions

This Tort Claims Act case arises from a now-deceased plaintiff's bicycle accident on a two-lane public road that straddled two municipalities.  The accident occurred on a stretch of the road that was chronically pitted with potholes, apparently due to drainage and freezing problems.  According to the deposition testimony of a local public safety director, potholes at that location had to be patched and re-patched "hundreds" of times in the five years before the accident.  Several citizens periodically reported the road's poor condition before the accident.  The road had no full-sized shoulders or designated bike lanes.

Plaintiff swerved his bicycle to avoid a passing truck, and lost control and fell when his tires hit the potholes.  Plaintiff's engineering expert opines that incorrect methods had been used to patch the road.  The expert further has opined that the persisting uneven surfaces were dangerous, not only for bicycles but also for motorcycles.

This opinion clarifies and extends the principles of Polzo v. County of Essex, 196 N.J. 569 (2008) ("Polzo I") and Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (2012) ("Polzo II"), concerning roadway surface conditions that endanger the safety of bicyclists on public roads.  In a fact pattern involving a bicycle accident on a road's potholed shoulder, the Court held in Polzo II that the public entity defendant had no duty to maintain the shoulder to an extent safe for bicyclists.  Id. at 70-75.  The Court distinguished that no-duty-to-bicyclists situation from a roadway condition that also happens to be unsafe for motorized vehicles.  Ibid.

This court applies the rationale of Polzo II here to this bicycle accident that occurred in a vehicular lane, and to a record with an unrebutted expert opinion that the road surface was unsafe for both motorcycles and bicycles.  The court concludes a public entity that is palpably unreasonable in failing to correct such a known dangerous road condition may be liable to a bicyclist who is injured because of that danger.  In doing so, the court recognizes that a plaintiff operating a two-wheeled vehicle must use due care when confronting a visibly hazardous potholed surface.  These principles are consistent with New Jersey Department of Transportation regulations concerning the safety of roadway surfaces.

Viewing this record in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the court vacates summary judgment in favor of the two municipal defendants that maintained and patched the road.  In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the court addresses other discrete matters.

Plaintiff hospitals brought action challenging the charity care program that requires them to provide care to all patients regardless of their ability to pay, while also prohibiting them from billing patients who qualify for charity care under the statute.  The trial court dismissed certain hospitals' claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  As to the remaining claims, the trial court found that the regulations do not affect a constitutional taking under either a per se or Penn Central analysis. 

On de novo review, the court first addressed the ripeness issue.  It held that plaintiffs raised facial challenges to charity care and therefore had properly raised their claims in the first instance with the trial court.  Therefore, the court considered all plaintiff hospitals' constitutional takings claims.  Next, the court held that plaintiffs failed to show either a per se or regulatory taking violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Paragraph 20 of the New Jersey Constitution.  As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment on the merits, but did so on different grounds, entering summary judgment against all plaintiffs, including those previously dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.    

Plaintiff's decedent succumbed to the COVID-19 virus in May 2020.  The Estate claims the decedent's death was a result of defendants' "negligent, grossly negligent, careless and reckless actions and omissions" in discharging his wife, from whom he allegedly contracted the disease, from defendant long-term care facility in April 2020, while the result of her PCR test was pending.  Defendants notified the decedent's wife, their patient, and the decedent of the patient's positive test upon defendants' receipt of the result two days after her discharge.  The decedent tested positive for the virus shortly thereafter.  Defendants' patient survived her bout with the virus; the decedent tragically did not.

The court reverses the denial of defendant health providers' motions to dismiss plaintiff's medical negligence, wrongful death and survival claim, finding, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, that there is no well-established common law rule in New Jersey that a "physician has the duty to warn third persons against possible exposure to contagious or infectious diseases," and that plaintiff has not otherwise pled any recognizable derivative duty defendants owed to the decedent.

Although orders granting Rule 4:6-2 motions are ordinarily entered without prejudice, the Legislature's decision in the New Jersey COVID-19 Immunity Statute, L. 2020, c. 18, to temporarily limit the scope of whatever duty we might recognize defendants owed their patient and, derivatively, the decedent, to one of simply avoiding gross negligence during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic leaves plaintiff unable to state a claim on the facts alleged.  It is not possible for a reasonable jury to find defendants were not simply negligent, but grossly negligent or reckless in discharging the decedent's wife to his care in April 2020, before knowing the result of her pending PCR test.

This appeal concerned the threshold requirements for an applicant's waiver of court fees based on indigency. Rule 1:13-2(a), governing proceedings by indigents, was supplemented by the New Jersey Supreme Court's April 5, 2017 order, which established a standard fee waiver application process and criteria.  The Court's order authorized the Administrative Office of the Courts to promulgate directives providing "uniform fee waiver request forms" and a standard protocol.  See generally Admin. Off. of the Cts., Admin. Directive #03-17, Fee Waivers Based on Indigence (rev. Apr. 20, 2017). 

Plaintiff Tyree Deshawn Mims appealed from a July 19, 2023 Law Division order, which denied without prejudice his motion to proceed as indigent.  The trial court found that plaintiff failed to provide the required documentation.  On appeal, plaintiff contended his submitted documentation satisfied the eligibility requirements of Rule 1:13-2(a), warranting a waiver of court fees in this action and in all future litigation.  The court concluded the trial court properly denied plaintiff's motion because he failed to complete the uniform fee waiver forms and to submit the required supporting documentation establishing indigency.

This interlocutory appeal concerns the interpretation of the Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.14, and its application to a defendant employer's commission structure.  The motion judge ruled the plaintiff employee's commissions in dispute stemming from the sale of Personal Protection Equipment ("PPE") during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were not "wages" covered by the statute and instead fell within the statute's exception for "supplementary incentives."  Plaintiff had sought payment of more than $1.3 million in commissions claimed on over $32 million in PPE sales that she helped generate in the three-month period from March 2020 through June 2020.

The Supreme Court granted the employee's motion for leave to appeal, remanding the case to this court "for consideration on the merits, limited to whether the commission structure at issue falls within the Wage Payment Law."

Under the circumstances presented, the compensation the employee sought for the PPE sales are "supplementary incentives" excluded by N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1(c), and not regular commissions within the ordinary scope of her sales compensation plan.  The employer's commitment to pay commissions on PPE sales was outside of plaintiff's customary role in selling the company's services and were designed to stimulate the sales of PPE during a time of sudden pandemic-related demand.

The court therefore affirms the motion judge's ruling, but, as the judge recognized, subject to plaintiff's non-statutory contractual claims.

This case of first impression resolves the proper means to attempt to rescind a certificate of dissolution and termination of a New Jersey limited liability company (LLC), which allegedly has been filed in error or without authorization.  The statutory scheme for LLCs, N.J.S.A. 42:2C-1 to -94, contains no provision authorizing the New Jersey Department of the Treasury to perform such a rescission.

The Department accordingly declined plaintiffs' request to rescind a certificate of dissolution and termination that plaintiffs allege had been improperly filed by a former LLC member, advising that such relief can only be obtained through a court proceeding.  Plaintiffs then filed a civil action in the Law Division, which transferred the dispute to this court.

The court concludes the LLC statutes do not empower the Department to rescind such certificates administratively, in the absence of a court order directing such relief.  However, the court holds that our trial courts possess the jurisdiction and authority to grant such relief, with a proper showing of justification by the applicant and upon appropriate notice to interested or affected parties.

The court reverses an interlocutory Law Division order suppressing handguns and a large-capacity ammunition magazine police found in a locked glove box during a traffic stop.   The case presents two questions of first impression under New Jersey law.  Are police permitted to search a glove box under the automobile exception based solely on the odor of marijuana emanating generally from the passenger compartment without first determining whether the odor is coming specifically from the vicinity of the glove box?  And does the New Jersey automobile exception extend to a glove box that is intentionally locked, manifesting a heightened expectation of privacy in its contents?  

Applying principles explained in State v. Cohen, 254 N.J. 308, 328 (2023), the court holds that the smell of marijuana emanating from the passenger compartment provided probable cause to search the entire interior for marijuana, which includes the glove box, since that was a place within the passenger compartment where marijuana could be concealed.  The court declines to create a new rule that would essentially require police to follow a scent trail or pre-inspect containers in the passenger compartment before opening them. 

The court likewise rejects defendants' contention that by locking the glove box, defendants manifested a heightened expectation of privacy comparable to that which applies to a home, taking the glove box outside the realm of the automobile exception.  The court also holds it does not matter under the automobile exception whether the contents of the locked glove box were accessible to the vehicle occupants.  In this respect, the automobile exception is different from the search-incident-to-arrest exception, which limits the scope of a warrantless search to areas "within [the arrestees'] immediate control," see Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969). 

Finally, the court rules that by using a key to open the locked glove box, rather than breaking it open, the "intensity" with which the warrantless search was executed was eminently reasonable and lawful.       

          Defendant Jeffrey Walker entered into a plea agreement with the State after misappropriating health care insurance premiums from his company's employees instead of paying them to the insurance carrier.  In return for defendant's plea to third-degree theft by illegal retention, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-9; and third-degree misappropriation of entrusted property, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-15 and agreement to pay restitution to his victims of $72,471.35, the State agreed to recommend five years of non-custodial probation.  Defendant was then sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.

         Defendant's probation ended and the then-outstanding balance of his restitution was transferred to collections.  At the time of the appeal, defendant had paid only $27,746 of the money he misappropriated, still owing $45,595.35.  Defendant learned his restitution had been prorated among all the victims, and the prorated restitution owed to the victims not yet located had escheated to the State in case they were later located.

         Defendant filed a post-conviction relief ("PCR") petition to return the escheated funds and pay the victims who had been located.  Defendant then argued it would be in the interest of justice that his restitution obligation be deemed completed once the located victims were fully paid.

         The court rejected defendant's proposal to essentially renegotiate individual restitution settlements as it emphasized the restitution amount and framework was part of a plea agreement negotiated with the State and approved by the trial court.  To extinguish defendant's obligation to pay the full restitution would unjustly reward defendant for his failure to timely pay the full restitution amount within the negotiated five years.  Defendant's proposal would allow him to keep some of the fruits of his offense and deprive his victims of compensation for the losses suffered.  It would also run counter to the remunerative, rehabilitative, deterrence, and punitive goals of restitution.  As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of PCR.

In State v. Comer, the New Jersey Supreme Court held juvenile offenders, prosecuted as adults and convicted of murder, are constitutionally entitled to reconsideration of their sentences after twenty years' imprisonment.  249 N.J. 359, 369-70 (2022).  In these consolidated appeals, all three defendants were eighteen years of age or older when they were prosecuted and convicted of murder, and were sentenced to prison terms ranging from thirty years with a thirty-year parole disqualifier to life with a forty-year parole bar.  Having exhausted their appeals and collateral review, defendants filed pro se applications with the motion courts for the reduction or change of sentence under Rule 3:21-10.  The motion courts denied their applications on the papers, without appointing counsel. 

On appeal, defendants contend, as did other similarly situated youthful offenders before them, the Court's decision in Comer should extend to youthful offenders between the ages of eighteen and twenty when they committed their offenses.  Defendants therefore argue their lengthy sentences should receive the same constitutional protection as juvenile offenders prosecuted and convicted as adults.  Defendants further contend the motion courts should have assigned counsel rather than denying their pro se applications without a hearing. 

The court declined defendants' invitation to extend Comer's holding, concluding the Supreme Court's decision was limited to juvenile offenders tried and convicted of murder in adult court, and the Court neither explicitly nor implicitly extended this right of sentence review to offenders between the ages of eighteen and twenty.  Citing its limited institutional role as an intermediate appellate court, the court expressed its obligation to follow precedential opinions of the United States Supreme Court and the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Noting defendants' arguments lacked merit under Comer and were not particularly complex, the court further concluded the motion courts properly decided their applications without assignment of counsel.  Accordingly, the court affirmed all three orders under review.

     This matter involves a defendant sex offender's motion to modify his judgment of conviction (JOC) and Sex Offender Restraining Order (SORO) issued pursuant to Nicole's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2 and 2C:44-8.  The SORO prohibited defendant from having any contact with the two victims—his step-daughters—his ex-wife, and their two minor biological children.  Defendant moved to modify the JOC and SORO to allow him to have contact and parenting time with his two minor biological children through a third party.

     Applying the framework established in Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424 (Ch. Div. 1995), this court concludes that based on similarities between a SORO and a final restraining order issued under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, the factors set forth in Carfagno are applicable to use in considering an application to modify or vacate a SORO, determining the continued necessity of a SORO.

     In this interlocutory appeal, defendants Blue Ocean Waters, LLC and its members Piyush Viradia and Jiten Parikh seek to vacate two orders of the Chancery court.  First, its January 18, 2023 order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff AC Ocean Walk, LLC to judicially dissociate Blue Ocean Waters and dissolve the parties' partnership agreement under the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), N.J.S.A. 42:1A-1 to -56.  Second, its March 13, 2023 order denying defendants' motion for reconsideration and amending the partial summary judgment order to reflect that the partnership had dissolved on October 10, 2020.

     We affirm the January 18, 2023 order granting judicial dissociation and dissolution of the parties' partnership agreement.  Defendants' failure to respond to AC Ocean Walk's September 30, 2020 notice of breach of the agreement is a clear indication that judicial dissociation was appropriate under N.J.S.A. 42:1A-31(e) as "it [was] not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with the partner."  Although no case law in our State has interpreted the "not reasonably practicable" standard for judicial dissociation of a partner, our conclusion is supported by the interpretation of like statutes in other jurisdictions.

     We, however, reverse the March 13, 2023 order by amending the effective date of the dissociation and dissolution to coincide with the date of January 18, 2023 order.  Based on the record before us and the plain language of N.J.S.A. 42:1a-39(e)(3), judicial dissolution occurs when there "is a judicial determination that . . . it is not otherwise reasonably practicable to carry on the partnership business in conformity with the partnership agreement."  Again, in the absence of our State's case law defining the effective date of dissociation and dissolution under N.J.S.A. 42:1A-39(e)(3), our conclusion is supported by the interpretation of like statutes in other jurisdictions.

This dispute involves whether a party to a contract waived its right to compel arbitration by its conduct in a lawsuit it initiated.

Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration of claims against defendants for nonpayment of residential construction services they rendered.  The parties' contract, which was drafted by plaintiffs, contained a provision calling for disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration.

The motion judge ruled that plaintiffs waived their contractual right to arbitrate.  Among other things indicative of such a waiver, the record shows that: (1) plaintiffs filed claims in the Law Division beyond those necessary to assert a lien under the Construction Lien Law (CLL), N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-1 to -38; (2) asserted in their Rule 4:5-1(b)(2) certification accompanying their complaint that no arbitration was contemplated; and (3) waited to move to compel arbitration after receiving the benefit of significant discovery, while failing to comply reciprocally with defendants' discovery demands.

Applying the multifactor test prescribed in Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center, 215 N.J. 265, 280-81 (2013), this court concludes that plaintiffs waived their right to compel arbitration.  In the course of doing so, however, the court rejects defendants' contention that the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2022), eradicates the Cole factor that considers whether the party opposing arbitration was prejudiced by the movant's delay.  Prejudice remains one of the pertinent, but not individually dispositive, Cole factors after Morgan.  However, that particular factor is not controlling in this case, given the totality of the circumstances that otherwise, on balance, further establish waiver.

P.S.: Please note that the court is simultaneously issuing with Marmo two unpublished opinions applying the Cole waiver factors and citing Marmo. 

     In this case of first impression, the court considers the limitations on property owners' liability under N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18, when certain classes of motor vehicles are operated on their premises.  Plaintiff in this matter claimed he sustained severe personal injuries when he struck a steel cable while riding his dirt bike on the quarry grounds owned by defendant property owners.  The cable was part of the machinery used in dredging the quarry.  The incident occurred on a Sunday afternoon, while the business was closed. 

     The motion judge dismissed plaintiff's complaint on summary judgment, concluding defendants were immune from liability under N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18 because plaintiff lacked express consent to operate his dirt bike on their property.  The judge summarily denied as moot plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint to assert allegations of willful and wanton misconduct. 

     Comparing N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18 to a similar statute under the Landowner's Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-1 to -10, the court concludes defendants did not act willfully to create a hazardous condition on their property by failing to lower the steel cable, within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18.  Because the court holds summary judgment was warranted under N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18, the court concludes the motion judge properly denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint.

           This appeal presents a novel issue requiring the court to determine whether the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, or the common law right of public access, mandates disclosure of an attorney's identity when the attorney renders legal advice to a colleague or friend about an ongoing prosecution.  In the present matter, a municipal prosecutor sought counsel from an attorney who, in turn, rendered advice via email to the prosecutor's personal account.  The prosecutor, in turn, disclosed the contents of the email in open court and provided a printed copy of the email to the defense, but redacted the sender's name and email address.  The municipality thereafter denied a government records request for the unredacted email.

          Plaintiff Association for Governmental Responsibility, Ethics, and Transparency (AGREAT) appeals from the March 3, 2023 Law Division order denying its order to show cause to compel production of the email requested from defendants Borough of Mantoloking, its clerk, and its custodian of records.  The motion judge concluded the email did not fall within OPRA's definition of a government record.  The court affirms the order under review and further holds the email is not subject to disclosure under the common law.  The court also concludes, even if the email were a government record, the work product privilege and confidentiality exemptions under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9(b) weigh against disclosure.

          Smith, J.A.D., filed a dissenting opinion, concluding:  the redacted email was a public record under OPRA; the redacted email was privileged pursuant to the work-product privilege, but an attorney waived that privilege in court; a balancing of the public's access to government records with the email sender's reasonable expectation of privacy under Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995), justifies disclosure of the name and email address of the sender.

This appeal concerns two ordinances of the Borough of Highland Park that amended its municipal code to allow cannabis retailers, consumption lounges, and delivery services to operate in the Borough, subject to operating, licensing, and tax regulations.  Although the ordinances were enacted under express authority delegated by the Legislature through New Jersey's recreational marijuana statute, the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (known as CREAMMA), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56, several concerned residents of the Borough challenged the ordinances in the Law Division as preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801.  They also claimed the ordinances are inconsistent with the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163, and other state and federal laws.  The Law Division judge dismissed the complaint as procedurally untimely and also substantively deficient for failure to state a claim.

In the published portion of this opinion, the court reverses the Law Division’s dismissal of the complaint as untimely under Rule 4:69-6(a), but affirms the dismissal of plaintiffs' preemption claims.  As to the former, the issues presented concern sufficient matters of public interest to qualify under Rule 4:69-6(c) for an enlargement of the 45-day filing period.  As to the latter, the court concludes that, as other state courts have found, the text of the CSA and federal marijuana enforcement policies do not require a finding of conflict preemption of CREAMMA or the Borough's ordinances.

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the court remands plaintiffs' remaining state-law claims, which were dismissed without an opportunity for discovery and without a possible evidentiary hearing, if one proves necessary to resolve expert opinion and credibility issues.

Pursuant to the Solar Act of 2021, N.J.S.A. 48:3-114 to -120, the Legislature directed the Board of Public Utilities to create a solar facilities program for awarding contracts for grid supply solar facilities and net metered solar facilities greater than five megawatts.  In addition to setting renewable energy goals for the State, the Act directs the development of policy for grid supply solar siting so as not to compromise the State's commitment to preserving and protecting open space and farmland. 

To that end, the Board developed a competitive solar incentive (CSI) program in coordination with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture, and the State Agriculture Development Committee to issue recommendations and a straw proposal on siting requirements.  After a four-year process, which included extensive stakeholder engagement, the Board issued an order that launched the CSI Program. 

N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c) sets forth seven categories of land where solar facilities shall not be sited unless authorized by a waiver.  N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(c)(7) prohibits siting solar facilities on certain agricultural soils where the grid supply solar facility exceeds the Statewide threshold of 2.5% of such soils unless authorized by the waiver process pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f).  N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) describes the waiver process but also states that in no case shall a grid supply solar facility occupy more than 5% of the unpreserved land containing prime agricultural soils and soils of Statewide importance located within any county's designated agricultural development area.

Appellant moved for reconsideration, arguing the Board misinterpreted the siting provisions of the Act codified in N.J.S.A. 48:3-119.  Among other arguments raised by appellant before the Board and on appeal, appellant claimed the Board misinterpreted the Act and ignored the legislative history.  Appellant alleged the 5% per county limit could be exceeded if the 2.5% Statewide limit was not exceeded.  The Board interpreted the siting provisions independently and held the 5% per county limit on development could not be waived. 

The court affirmed the Board's ruling and found the plain language of the Act demonstrated N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f)'s limit on solar development to 5% of a county's agricultural land was unambiguous.  The 2.5% Statewide limit expressed in N.J.S.A. 483-119(c)(7) served a different purpose and was not a means for a solar developer to exceed the 5% per county restriction.  Moreover, applying the per county limit only after the Statewide limit has been reached could lead to the development of the entirety of a county's agricultural lands.

Given the Act's unambiguous language, the court did not need to resort to the legislative history.  Even so, the legislative history showed the Legislature intended to minimize the potential adverse environmental impacts of solar development and the Legislature never revised the 5% per county limit or stated the per county limit could be waived in either version of the bill before it became law. 

The Board's interpretation of the Act balanced the Legislature's intent to preserve the State's vital natural resources while encouraging the development of clean solar energy.  

The Borough of Englewood Cliffs retained Thomas J. Trautner and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, (collectively CSG), Albert Wunsch III, and Jeffrey Surenian and Jeffrey Surenian and Associates, LLC, (collectively Surenian) to represent it in affordable housing litigation.  After judgment was entered for developer 800 Sylvan Avenue, LLC. (Sylvan), a settlement was reached between the Borough and Sylvan.  Thereafter, political control of the Borough Council majority changed hands and the newly constituted Council sued CSG, Wunsch, and Surenian, alleging professional malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting arising from their representation of the Borough in the litigation.  The Borough also sued Sylvan, alleging claims of conspiracy and aiding and abetting. 

The trial court granted defendants' Rule 4:6-2(e) motions to dismiss the Borough's complaint with prejudice.  The trial court subsequently granted defendants' motion for sanctions, ordering the Borough to pay their attorney's fees and costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit.  The Borough appeals, arguing the sanction applications were procedurally deficient; as a public entity, it is immune from paying sanctions under the FLS; and the trial court abused its discretion in finding the Borough's lawsuit was frivolous.[1]

The court rejects the Borough's arguments and affirms based on our interpretation of the FLS that the Borough is not immune from sanctions, defendants' applications for sanctions were procedurally compliant with Rule 1:4-8, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against the Borough.

[1] After their merit briefs were filed, the Borough and Jeffrey Surenian and Jeffrey Surenian and Associates, LLC filed a stipulation of dismissal dismissing all claims and counterclaims, including but not limited to claims for attorney's fees.

         M.R. appealed from a final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), denying his application for a certificate of eligibility for compassionate release under the Compassionate Release Act (CRA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e.  The DOC denied his application because two licensed physicians designated by the commissioner of the DOC had rendered medical diagnoses in which they found M.R. had neither a terminal condition nor a permanent physical incapacity as defined by the CRA.   

         M.R. argued on appeal the CRA and related regulations required the designated physicians to examine him physically and the DOC's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the physicians had not physically examined him and had failed to make certain findings required under the CRA.  The court disagreed, concluding that, while a physician may request a physical examination, the CRA and related regulations did not require one.  The court also concluded the physicians had made the requisite findings.  Accordingly, the court affirmed the DOC's decision. 

On leave granted, in this medical negligence matter, we consider whether N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a) under the New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-37 to -42, requires plaintiffs to serve an affidavit of merit (AOM) from a physician board certified in both specialties if defendant physician is board certified in two specialties, and the treatment claimed to be negligent involves both specialties.

Plaintiffs rely on Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377 (2011), in asserting they need only provide an AOM from a physician who specializes in either of the defendant doctor's specialties.  The trial court agreed and denied defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to provide the proper AOM and for reconsideration.

Defendant physician is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology.  He certified that his care and treatment of plaintiffs' decedent involved both specialties.  Plaintiffs only served an AOM from a physician board certified in internal medicine.

In considering defendants' dismissal motions, the trial court cited to two sentences from Buck:  "A physician may practice in more than one specialty, and the treatment involved may fall within that physician's multiple specialty areas.  In that case, an [AOM] from a physician specializing in either area will suffice."  Id. at 391.

Because the facts presented here are distinguishable from Buck and the discrete ruling in Buck was not specific to this issue, and in considering the legislative purpose of the Act, and the principles of law espoused in the subsequent cases of Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 480-88 (2013), and Pfannenstein ex. rel. Estate of Pfannenstein v. Surrey, 475 N.J. Super. 83, 90-91 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 254 N.J. 517 (2023), we conclude plaintiffs must serve an AOM from a physician board certified in each of defendant doctor's specialties.  We are also guided by the kind-for-kind, credential equivalency requirement articulated in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41(a).  Therefore, we reverse the court's orders denying defendants' motions to dismiss for a deficient AOM and for reconsideration.

However, because plaintiffs raised the issue of a waiver from the AOM requirement, and the issue was fully briefed and discussed during oral argument before the trial court, we remand for the court to determine the waiver argument on its merits.

This appeal addresses whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a statement defendant had made to police and barring in part the testimony of defendant's expert witness. 

Several months after the drug-induced death of the victim, a police detective interviewed defendant, eliciting from her information about her cell-phone usage before he advised her of her Miranda rights and information regarding her drug-selling activity and contact with the victim after he advised her of her rights.  The detective told defendant he was "not holding anything back" and was "laying it all out . . . on the table" but never mentioned the death of the victim and repeatedly used the present tense when discussing her.   Defendant confessed to selling heroin to the victim.  The parties did not raise before the trial court the admissibility of defendant's statement, and the statement was admitted into evidence. The trial court granted the State's pretrial motion to bar defendant's expert witness from testifying about drug use and addiction, finding him qualified only in toxicology and not in those fields.  A jury convicted defendant of committing a first-degree drug-induced death crime, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-9(a), along with other drug-related crimes. 

The court finds the trial court (1) committed plain error by admitting defendant's statement without first conducting a Rule 104 hearing to determine under a totality-of-the-circumstances test the voluntariness of defendant's statement and Miranda waiver; (2) erred in admitting the pre-Miranda questions and answers but that that error did not rise to the level of plain error because other evidence was admitted regarding defendant's cell-phone usage; and (3) abused its discretion by limiting defendant's expert testimony without conducting a Rule 104 hearing regarding the expert witness's qualifications and opinions.  The court remands the case and instructs the trial court to conduct evidentiary hearings regarding the voluntariness of defendant's statement, the qualifications of defendant's expert witness, and the admissibility of his opinions.   Whether defendant's convictions are affirmed or vacated for a new trial depends on the outcomes of those hearings.

     At issue in this interlocutory appeal is the propriety of a pretrial order compelling the administration of psychotropic medication in an attempt to restore competency, without a defendant's consent, when the accused has not been deemed a danger to self or others.  With defendant's constitutional rights in view, the court applies the four-pronged test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), and concludes the motion judge erroneously determined the State satisfied the second Sell prong.  The court therefore reverses the order under review. 

     In doing so, the court departs from the majority of federal appellate courts and holds the standard of review under the Sell test is mixed; the court therefore reviews the motion court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error as to each Sell prong.  Having resolved the issues by applying the Sell standard, the court does not reach the constitutional arguments urged by defendant and amici curiae.

In this automobile insurance coverage dispute, the court considered defendant Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company's appeal from Law Division orders granting summary judgment to plaintiff Britney Motil, entitling her to $100,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage, and denying reconsideration.  

This appeal presented the novel issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to UIM coverage as a "covered driver" injured in an automobile accident while driving a "covered auto" with an identified alternate garaging address under her parents' automobile policy.  Defendant disclaimed coverage, under the policy's uninsured motorist (UM)/UIM endorsement step-down provision, because plaintiff was neither a named insured nor a defined family member.  After a de novo review, the court concluded there was ambiguity between the declaration and the policy's step-down provision of $15,000 in UIM coverage because the declaration plainly provided:  $100,000 UM/UIM coverage for each person; plaintiff was a covered driver; the UM/UIM premium charged was the same for each vehicle; and plaintiff's vehicle was a covered vehicle with an alternate garaging address.  Further, the court concluded the policyholder's reasonable expectation of $100,000 UIM coverage should be afforded.  

The court affirmed the Law Division's orders finding plaintiff was entitled to $100,000 in UIM insurance coverage and denying reconsideration.

         In these cases that were consolidated for the purpose of issuing a single opinion, defendants appeal from their convictions following municipal court appeals because the Law Division decided their appeals without conducting hearings or permitting briefing.

         In both cases, the Law Division determined briefing was not required and, because defendants did not request argument, decided the appeals based solely on its review of the municipal court transcripts and the police body camera video introduced as evidence in the municipal court trials.  The court found it "is incumbent on counsel to . . . tell the court why briefing is necessary and to request argument if they want it."  On appeal, defendants argued the court deprived them of their rights to due process and counsel.

         The court reversed, concluding Rules 3:23-4 and -8 require that the Law Division schedule and conduct a hearing on a municipal appeal.  There is no requirement that a defendant request a hearing.  The court also noted, although the proceeding is technically designated an appeal, the Law Division must conduct a trial de novo on a municipal appeal.  At the trial de novo, the Law Division must make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and, if the court finds the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, sentence the defendant anew.

          The court also concluded, based on the arguments raised by defendants, it would be appropriate to permit, if not require, the parties to file briefs in these cases.  Finally, to avoid any appearance of bias or prejudice, the court required the appeals be assigned to a different judge on remand.

This appeal concerns issues of preclusion and the relationship between the statutory systems for the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Examiners revoking or suspending an educator's certificate to teach in the New Jersey public schools under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.1, and the separate arbitration process specified since 2012 in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38 to -39 2 (the TEACHNJ law) for a school district terminating or disciplining a teacher for improper conduct.

Appellant, a tenured teacher, was charged by the local board of education with unbecoming conduct.  The school board sought to terminate his employment in the district.  The contested matter was tried before an arbitrator.  The arbitrator found appellant had engaged in unbecoming conduct, but she imposed a milder sanction of a one-year suspension.  The arbitrator's decision was not challenged in court by either appellant or the school board.  The Board of Examiners then pursued the revocation of appellant's license based on his same improper conduct, and it is anticipated that contested case will be tried in the Office of Administrative Law.

Appellant contends the Board of Examiners and the Commissioner—even though they were not parties to the tenure arbitration—have no authority to pursue the revocation of his license because the arbitrator only suspended his employment for one year.  Among other things, appellant invokes a doctrine of "industrial double jeopardy" to support his preclusion argument.  He also contends the revocation proceedings violate his constitutional and civil rights.

The matter was presented to a Law Division judge, who confirmed the arbitration award but rejected appellant's arguments for preclusion.

This court affirms the trial court's decision and holds the Board of Examiners and the Commissioner are not precluded by the arbitration outcome from pursuing the revocation of appellant's teaching certificate.  The statewide teacher certificate revocation process authorized in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38 and -39 operates separately from the teacher tenure arbitration process under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.1.  The manifest legislative intent is for the two statutes to be administered independently of one another.  The proceedings involve non-identical parties, and also different stakes, procedures, and avenues and standards of appellate review. 

The court rejects appellant's assertion of industrial double jeopardy and his claims of the violation of his constitutional and civil rights.

Plaintiff, who was fired from her job as a physician, appeals from an order of the Superior Court, Law Division staying her complaint against defendants pending arbitration.  Plaintiff's claims included allegations of sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a statutory retaliation claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50.

Defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to plaintiff's employment contract.  The trial court granted the motion, finding the contract's arbitration clause was valid and enforceable.

The court engaged in a de novo review of the employment contract using well-settled contract principles, and it held the mandatory arbitration clause was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable against plaintiff.  Holding the arbitration clause unenforceable, the court declined to reach the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies.

In a separate opinion concurring with the result, a member of the panel would reverse for a different reason, discerning no ambiguity in the arbitration provision and concluding, unlike the contract at issue in Antonucci v. Curvature Newco, Inc., 470 N.J. Super. 553 (2022), the present contract is not governed by the FAA.  Accordingly, plaintiff's LAD claims would not be arbitrable pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.7.

In this matter, the court considers the novel issue of the circumstances under which a municipality may decline to adopt a Resolution of Support (ROS) for an applicant seeking to obtain a Class 5 Cannabis Retailer License (CRL) from the State of New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (the Commission) under N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56, the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA).

Plaintiff filed an order to show cause (OTSC) and a verified complaint against the Township of West Milford, the Council of West Milford Township (collectively referred to as the Township), and SoulFlora, Inc. after the Township effectively denied plaintiff's request for a ROS for its CRL application by not placing it on a public meeting agenda for consideration by the governing body.  The Township asserts its de facto denial was predicated on a Township ordinance prohibiting businesses with CRLs to be located less than 2,500 feet from each other.  The proposed location of plaintiff's cannabis business was less than 500 feet from SoulFlora's. 

Plaintiff sought injunctive relief to prevent SoulFlora from establishing a cannabis business; enjoining the Township from issuing a ROS to any other new cannabis business applicants; revoking SoulFlora's ROS; and requesting attorneys' fees and costs.  The court affirms denial of plaintiff's OTSC under Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982).  The court holds plaintiff did not have a likelihood of success on the merits, finding the Township's effective denial of plaintiff's request for a ROS was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable since under CREAMMA, municipalities are delegated the authority to promulgate location and density requirements for cannabis retail businesses and are statutorily vested with the right to decline to provide local support for applicants who fail to meet those requirements. 

The court reverses the with-prejudice dismissal of the claims against the Township and remands to the trial court to issue a statement of reasons pursuant to Rule 1:7‑4(a), along with an accompanying order.   The court affirms the dismissal of the complaint against SoulFlora with prejudice, while finding that it is an indispensable party for notice purposes only. 

          In this matter, the court considers whether the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice after finding it was barred by the entire controversy doctrine and res judicata.  Plaintiff's putative class action complaint, filed in Essex County, sought to claw back funds she paid in full satisfaction of a final default judgment, entered in a prior lawsuit adjudicated in Bergen County.  The court holds that the entire controversy doctrine precludes plaintiff from relitigating a final default judgment through the filing of a new complaint in a different court when she failed to pursue any of her substantive arguments in the previous litigation. 

          Plaintiff defaulted on paying an outstanding credit card balance, so the bank closed out her account and assigned her outstanding debt to defendants.  Through a complaint filed in Bergen County, defendants obtained a final default judgment against plaintiff, which she did not move to vacate or otherwise appeal.  Plaintiff fully satisfied the judgment through wage garnishments.

          Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in Essex County against defendants seeking a declaratory judgment voiding the debt and any judgments enforcing that debt, as well as treble damages and disgorgement of amounts previously paid to defendants, based on the assertion that defendant was not licensed, as required by the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (CFLA), N.J.S.A. 17:11C-1 to -49. 

          Since the entire controversy doctrine precludes plaintiff from pursuing the Essex County litigation predicated on substantive defenses that could have been raised in the prior Bergen County litigation, there was no amendment to the pleading that could have rendered plaintiff's complaint viable.  Thus, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice based on the entire controversy doctrine was appropriate.  The court affirms the Essex County order.

          Following the 2020 decennial United States Census, the City of Jersey City Ward Commission (the Commission) redrew the six election wards for the City of Jersey City (the City).  In these two consolidated appeals, plaintiffs challenge the ward boundaries and map adopted by the Commission.  Plaintiffs contend that the new ward map violates the Municipal Ward Law (the MW Law), N.J.S.A. 40:44-9 to -18, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (the CR Act), N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, and their rights of free speech, free association, and equal protection under the New Jersey Constitution.  They also argue that the Commission did not comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (the OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21.

The court affirms in part and reverses in part the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaints in lieu of prerogative writs.  The court affirms the dismissal of the claims asserting violations of plaintiffs' constitutional rights, the CR Act, and the OPMA.  The court reverses the dismissal of the claims of violations of the MW Law.  Resolution of those statutory claims requires some, albeit limited, fact-finding.  Therefore, the court remands the MW Law claims for a focused and limited proceeding on whether the Commission had a rational basis for the ward boundaries and map it adopted.

In this matter, the court considers whether the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after a search of the vehicle defendant was operating following a traffic stop.  When the officer approached defendant's vehicle, he noticed a burnt smell of marijuana emanating from it.  The officer did not intend to search the vehicle at that point.  However, after the dispatcher informed the officer defendant had an outstanding warrant necessitating defendant's arrest, and the officer smelled a perceptible odor of raw marijuana on defendant's person as they sat together in the patrol car, the officer decided to search the vehicle.

The court concludes that the officer's testimony regarding the odors established probable cause for the subsequent search of the vehicle.  In addition, the finding of probable cause arose in unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances.  There were not two stops as argued by defendant.  The discovery of the warrant and new smell emanating from defendant's person permitted the officer to continue the investigation.  The search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as articulated in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015).  The court affirms the order denying defendant's suppression motion.

          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.

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.

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.

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.

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.