Opinion Summaries

In this action brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, the court was asked to determine whether a parochial school's knowledge of the pregnancy of an unmarried lay teacher, who started as a teacher's aide for toddlers, later taught art, and had no responsibility for religious instruction, can serve as the nondiscriminatory basis for the teacher's termination for violating the school's morals code, where the school never made any effort to determine whether any of its other employees have violated the school's prohibition against "immoral conduct" that is allegedly incorporated into each employees' terms of employment. The court held that knowledge or mere observation of an employee's pregnancy alone is not a permissible basis to detect violations of the school's policy and terminate an employee.

The court determined that real estate auction sales contracts prepared by attorneys, licensed real estate brokers, or salespersons need not contain the three-day attorney review clause mandated by N.J. State Bar Ass'n v. N.J. Ass'n of Realtor Boards, 93 N.J. 470 (1983), as codified in N.J.A.C. 11:5-6.2(g). Here, a blank, pre-printed contract was sent to the highest bidder, defendant, and recommended an attorney review the contract. The court rejected defendant's claim that she was entitled to a return of her $121,000 deposit monies after not being able to secure financing in this cash deal. The liquidated damages provision in the sales contract was validated, and the $121,000 deposit monies, plus interest, were equally divided between plaintiffs/sellers and co-defendant.

The court reverses summary judgment to defendants Orange Board of Education, Sussex County Regional Transportation Cooperative and K&H Transport Inc., the bus company responsible for transporting a seventeen-year-old special needs student to and from an out-of-district, State-approved school for students with disabilities. The trial judge determined the bus company owed no duty to plaintiffs "to protect against the alleged injury" — sexual assault — and that no reasonable person could find the bus company's actions caused plaintiff's injury. The court finds that whether the minor-plaintiff's sexual assault, by young men she encountered after being dropped off unsupervised blocks from the designated bus stop outside her home, was a foreseeable risk of injury to her was impacted by the extent of the minor's disability, and that the trial court erred in resolving that question on disputed facts.

The process for the expungement of a voluntary or involuntary commitment can be found in N.J.S.A. 30:4-80.8 to -80.11. The statutory scheme does not prohibit additional applications if a first petition is unsuccessful. The relevant language in the statute requires a petitioner seeking expungement to present his or her personal history since the hospitalization, as well as his or her present circumstances, and reputation in the community. N.J.S.A. 30:4-80.8; N.J.S.A. 30:4-80.9. Therefore, the court concludes the dismissal of a petition entered after an evidentiary hearing should be designated as "without prejudice."

Following the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence, defendant pled guilty to first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. Police officers seized the evidence following an investigatory stop of an automobile in which defendant was a passenger. The arresting officer testified he stopped the car because he was advised two black men had robbed a store. The officer used a spotlight mounted to his car to illuminate the interiors of passing vehicles as he traveled to the store. In one car, he observed three black men who did not react to the light. The officer stopped the car based on those observations. The court holds that knowledge of the race and gender of criminal suspects, without more, does not establish a reasonable articulable suspicion that the men in the car had robbed the store. Accordingly, the court reverses defendant's conviction, vacates his sentence, and remands for further proceedings.

Based on the facts of this case, the Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in that court’s opinion.

Tax Court: B & D Assoc., LTD. v. Township of Franklin Docket Number 6112-2017 and 6387-2018, opinion by Brennan, J.T.C.,decided October 26, 2020. For plaintiff – Lawrence S. Berger (Berger & Bornstein LLC, attorneys); for defendant – Gregory B. Pasquale (Shain Schaffer PC, attorneys)

Held: The municipality’s summary judgment motion was denied.Municipality’s summary judgment motion challenged a property owner’s standing to pursue tax appeals during a time when the property was in foreclosure and tax payments were made by the mortgagee. The Tax Court found that an owner of real property has a sufficient stake in the property’s tax assessment while it holds title to the property and therefore qualifies as an aggrieved taxpayer pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21. The court held that plaintiff had standing to appeal the 2017 and 2018 tax assessments as it held title to the property until at least August 8, 2018, which was beyond the October 1 valuation date and the April 1 filing date for those years.

In this appeal from a contested private adoption matter, the court reversed the termination of the biological mother's parental rights and vacated the judgment of adoption in favor of the child's stepmother. The court held the evidence did not support the finding that the biological mother had failed to affirmatively assume the duties of a parent, and found error in the trial court's reliance upon the biological mother's child support arrears as proof of intentional abandonment of financial obligations. Further, the court held the trial court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof, relied on hearsay, and erroneously imported the "best interest" standard applicable to Title 30 guardianship proceedings.

On leave granted, defendant, a Mississippi attorney (and his associated law firms), appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. R. 4:6-2(b). Defendant was admitted pro hac vice to represent plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the district of New Jersey alleging, among other things, RICO claims against the New Jersey Attorney General and other state officials. The federal suit was ultimately dismissed; the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Plaintiff initiated this suit alleging malpractice and excessive billing in defendant's representation of him in the prior federal action. As he did before the Law Division, defendant, who never physically appeared in New Jersey in connection with the federal suit, argued that he never personally availed himself of the privileges of doing business in New Jersey, lacked requisite minimum contacts with the state, and that requiring him to defend himself in state court in New Jersey offended traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

The court affirmed the Law Division's denial of the motion to dismiss, finding particular significance in defendant's pro hac vice admission, since it required defendant to abide by certain New Jersey Court Rules, including, a limit on contingent fees, financial contribution to the Client Security Fund, and an obligation to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by our Supreme Court.

Tax Court: Metz Family Ltd. Partnership v. Township of Freehold, Docket Nos. 001064-2015; 000482-2016; 000783-2017;opinion by Sundar, J.T.C., decided October 20, 2020. For plaintiff - Daniel J. Pollak and Michael Rienzi (Brach Eichler, L.L.C. attorney); for defendant - Martin Allen and Wesley E. Buirkle (DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C., attorney); for the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and the Director, Division of Taxation - Abiola G. Miles and Michelline Capistrano Foster (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Held: Defendant’s motions to require joinder of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and the Director, Division of Taxation under R. 4:28-1 are granted. Only these two governmental entities can explain why they considered, verified, and certified the annual assessments in the defendant to be “reassessments” excepted from the application of the Chapter 123 ratio (or the average ratio), which is an issue of first impression and involves significant public interest.

Charged with numerous weapons and drug offenses, defendant moved in the trial court for the suppression of evidence – guns, ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia – seized pursuant to a search warrant based on information police obtained during a warrantless entry into defendant's home. The trial judge denied the suppression motion, finding the police conducted a permissible protective sweep of the home. The court disagreed with the trial judge's application of State v. Davila, 203 N.J. 97 (2010), concluding that the police lacked both a reasonable and articulable suspicion of danger and a legitimate purpose for remaining on the premises, since defendant was arrested outside the home and handcuffed before police conducted the sweep.10/

Defendant was convicted in municipal court of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a). In a de novo appeal pursuant to Rule 3:23-8, the Law Division found defendant guilty, but reduced the period of license suspension from nine months to seven months because the municipal court judge improperly relied on defendant's lack of credibility to support a lengthier period of license suspension. In this appeal, defendant argues the Law Division should have vacated his municipal court conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial.

This court also notes the Law Division's failure to follow the standard in State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138 (2017) when it stayed the execution of defendant's sentence pending the outcome of this appeal.

In these five consolidated appeals, petitioners and intervenors mount a facial challenge to Attorney General Grewal's Directives 2020-5 and 2020-6, which ended New Jersey's decades-long practice of shielding the identities of law enforcement officers receiving major discipline for misconduct

The court upholds the Directives, finding the Attorney General acted within his authority under the Law and Public Safety Act of 1948, the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, and N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181, and not in violation of Executive Order 11 (Byrne), OPRA, or any right of plaintiffs'. The court's conclusion that the Directives constitute a valid exercise of the Attorney General's authority does not preclude any officer from bringing an as-applied challenge to publication of his or her name pursuant to Directives 2020-5 or 2020-6 for discipline finalized before release of those Directives.

This case presents the unsettled legal question of whether a campus police officer who has been terminated by a State university or college because of alleged non-criminal misconduct may challenge his termination through what is known as "special disciplinary arbitration" administered by the Public Employment Relations Commission ("PERC" or "the Commission"), pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-209 and -210.

The legal issue arises in the context of an attempt by the New Jersey Institute of Technology ("NJIT") to terminate one of its campus police officers for alleged misconduct in using force to apprehend a potential juvenile offender who was bicycling through the university grounds. Over NJIT's objection, PERC referred the dispute to a special disciplinary arbitrator.

This court affirms PERC's determination that the NJIT police force is a "law enforcement agency" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-200. However, NJIT officers nonetheless are not eligible for special disciplinary arbitration because that option is restricted by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-150 to officers who work for municipal police departments in jurisdictions that are not part of the civil service system.

In addition, even if that statutory restriction under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-150 did not pertain, the officer in this case is ineligible because he has not been suspended without pay, as required by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-209 and -210.

Tax Court: Grace Ashkenazi v. Borough of Deal, Docket Nos.003252-2016; 000434-2017; 000107-2018; 001026-2019, opinion by Sundar, J.T.C., decided October 2, 2020. For plaintiff – Michael I. Schneck (Schneck law Group, LLC, attorney); for defendant – Martin M. Barger (Barger & Gaines, attorney).

Held: Plaintiff’s appraiser’s sales comparison approach as a valuation methodology for the subject property, a 11,330 square-feet single-family home located on a 2.54-acre lot, is rejected due to the quantum of adjustments and reliance on a computer-generated linear regression computation as the basis for certain adjustments. The court agrees with defendant’s appraiser (who found the subject property’s value to be lesser than the assessment for each tax year) that the cost approach was the most credible valuation methodology and accepts his land value conclusions. Based on the cost data included in plaintiff’s appraiser’s report, and other credible cost provisions, and after using higher depreciation rates than used by defendant’s appraiser, the court finds the value of the subject property at an amount lesser than defendant’s appraiser value conclusions for each tax year. The court will decide the issue of whether the average ratio should apply in a separate hearing.

In this appeal, the court considered a condominium association's standing to sue defendants alleged to have been involved in the design, manufacture, and installation of the condominium's windows. The motion judge found the association lacked standing because the master deed declares without ambiguity that the windows are part of the units. The court agreed with that understanding of the master deed and the limits it places on the association's window claims, but the court also recognized that any claim against these defendants based on allegations that their actions altered the buildings' exterior appearance in a way that violated a historic preservation easement could be asserted because the association is bound by the easement and would have a sufficient stake in that claim's outcome. Additionally, the court rejected the motion judge's finding that the association was limited to suing only the unit owners for damages caused to the common elements; that determination is inconsistent with the nature of the association's relationship to the common elements and to the unit owners.

Tax Court: National Winter Activity Center v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, Docket No. 008480-2017; opinion by Bianco, J.T.C., decided September 25, 2020. For plaintiff – Cara A. Parmigiani (Law Office of Cara A. Parmigiani LLC, attorney); for defendant - Joseph A. Palumbo (Director, Division of Taxation, attorney); for movant – Joshua A. Zielinski (O’Toole Scrivo, LLC, attorneys).

The court held that the movant, Vernon, satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right under R. 4:33-1, and granted Vernon’s motion to intervene, finding that Vernon has a legitimate interest in the subject of the litigation due to its authorization to use the funds in its municipality to further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301 to 329.9). The court also found that Vernon’s interest in the litigation was not adequately represented by the named defendant, the Director, and that the Municipality’s presence is necessary in cases where it is the ultimate user of the funds. Further, the court decided that Vernon’s application is timely because Vernon did not have actual notice of the pending litigation. The court rejected the Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the fees held in escrow by Vernon to the State because Vernon is the ultimate user of the funds, given that Vernon has obtained authorization to assess and maintain Non-Residential Development Fee funds under N.J.S.A. 52:27D- 329.2(a),(b).

Tax Court: Erin B. O’Connell v. Township of Neptune, Docket No. 009646-2020, opinion by Sundar, J.T.C., decided September 23, 2020. For plaintiff – Erin B. O’Connell (self-represented);for defendant – Gene J. Anthony (Law Offices of Gene J. Anthony, attorney).

Held: Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint as untimely filed is denied. Although plaintiff’s complaint to the Tax Court was filed on June 30, 2020, thus, beyond the deadline for filing complaints from the judgment of a county board of taxation, she benefits from the filing deadline extension due to COVID-19. Such extension was specifically provided for by the Orders of the New Jersey Supreme Court which culminated into law (L. 2020, c. 35). Although that law specifically excepts the tolling of appeal deadlines for properties which are located in Monmouth County (since Monmouth County participates in the Assessment Demonstration Program), and plaintiff’s property is located in Monmouth County, it does not affect the court’s conclusion. This is because the law applies only to “appeals filed with a county board of taxation,” and not as here, to appeals filed with the Tax Court from a county board of taxation’s judgment.

An underage adult defendant may be held civilly liable to a third-party drunk driving victim if the defendant facilitated the use of alcohol by making his home available as a venue for underage drinking, regardless of whether he is a leaseholder or titleholder of the property; if the guest causing the crash became visibly intoxicated in the defendant’s home; and if it was reasonably foreseeable that the visibly intoxicated guest would leave the residence to operate a motor vehicle and cause injury to another. The duty the Court recognizes today was foreshadowed by precedent and therefore will apply in the case of Zwierzynski.

The New Jersey Arbitration Act (NJAA), which provides a default procedure for the selection of an arbitrator and generally addresses the conduct of the arbitration, clearly expresses the Legislature’s intent that an arbitration agreement may bind the parties without designating a specific arbitrator or arbitration organization or prescribing a process for such a designation. N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-11(a), -15. Under principles of New Jersey law that generally govern contracts, the Agreement at issue is valid and enforceable.