Opinion Summaries

After the Salem County Hospital Corporation (SCHC) filed an application for a certificate of need (CN) to transfer ownership of the Memorial Hospital of Salem County, intervenors Carneys Point Rehabilitation and Nursing Center and Golden Rehabilitation and Nursing Center objected to SCHC's requests within that application to convert thirty existing medical/surgical beds to long-term care (LTC) beds and implement a previously approved CN for twenty-six psychiatric beds. Intervenors argued that with regard to the LTC beds: 1) SCHC's application was not filed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 8:33-4.1(a), which requires a finding by the Commissioner that a need exists for such beds in the area and the issuance of a call notice inviting competing applications from other providers in the area, and 2) the administrative record failed to establish a need for LTC beds. They also contended that with respect to the psychiatric beds, N.J.A.C. 8:33-3.3(j) prohibited the transfer of a previously unimplemented CN subject to exceptions which were inapplicable in this case.

The Commissioner granted SCHC's application for transfer of ownership as well as its requests for the LTC and psychiatric beds. It concluded that with regard to the LTC beds, "the addition of [thirty] LTC beds will have a minimal impact on the health care system as a whole and will contribute to the financial viability of Salem Hospital." With respect to the psychiatric beds, the Commissioner noted that the November 17, 2017 CN approval letter "addressed the requirements of N.J.S.A. 26:2H-8(a) [to] (f)" and incorporated that analysis by reference.

The court concludes that, despite the general deference owed to administrative agencies on appeal, the Commissioner failed to apply the relevant statutory factors to determine that there was a need for LTC beds in Salem County and he improperly awarded those beds without issuing a call notice in the New Jersey Register inviting competing applications for the provision of LTC beds. Further, even if the Commissioner's final decision can be interpreted as having determined a need for LTC beds in the area, the record contained insufficient support for such a finding. The court also concludes that the Commissioner was required to conduct an independent analysis of the actual need for a proposed service regardless of whether the transaction has an otherwise meritorious purpose, such as to support a hospital's financial viability. The court agrees, however, with the Commissioner's approval of the open adult acute care psychiatric beds to SCHC consistent with an unimplemented CN.

In this appeal, the court considered the trial judge's handling of a plaintiff's mid-trial request for a twenty-four-hour adjournment or a mistrial when plaintiff's medical witness unexpectedly failed to appear to testify. The judge denied plaintiff's request for any form of relief and granted defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:37-2(b), resulting in the dismissal of plaintiff's personal injury complaint with prejudice

The court holds that the judge's denial of an adjournment or a mistrial under the circumstances constituted a mistaken exercise of discretion. Because plaintiff's claim was completely dependent upon the non-appearing witness's testimony and plaintiff's inability to produce the witness was not the result of inexcusable neglect or willful failure, the court determines that the judge should have afforded some measure of relief to prevent the irretrievable loss of the claim and infringement of plaintiff's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court reverses the dismissal order and remands for a new trial.

Relying on two statutes addressing assignments, N.J.S.A. 2A:25-1 and N.J.S.A. 46:9-9, as well as common-law assignment principles, the Court holds that Investors had the right as an assignee of the Mortgage and transferee of the Note to enforce the Note. The Court construes N.J.S.A. 12A:3-309 to address the rights of CitiMortgage as the possessor of a note or other instrument at the time that the instrument is lost, but not to supplant New Jersey assignment statutes and common law in the setting of this appeal or to preclude an assignee in Investors’ position from asserting its rights according to the Note’s terms. Read together, those three statutes clearly authorized the assignment and entitled Investors to enforce its assigned Mortgage and transferred Note. The Court does not rely on the equitable principle of unjust enrichment invoked by the Appellate Division.

The arrangement by which Gourmet Dining operates Ursino is taxable as a lease or lease-like interest. The public-benefit-oriented exemption provisions in issue were not intended to exempt the for-profit operator of a high-end, regionally renowned restaurant situated on a college campus, when the overriding purpose of this commercial endeavor is focused on profitmaking. Gourmet Dining, as the exclusive operator and manager of this restaurant establishment, must bear its fair share of the local real property tax burden.

The Court answers the certified question in the negative. Under equitable principles of New Jersey law, the made-whole doctrine does not apply to first-dollar risk, such as a self-insured retention or deductible, that is allocated to an insured under an insurance policy.

Although aggregate proof of damages can be appropriate in some settings, the Court considers such proof improper as presented in this case. The trial court erred when it initially allowed plaintiff to prove class-members’ out-of-pocket costs for brake repairs based on an estimate untethered to the experience of plaintiff’s class. The trial court properly ordered individualized proof of damages on plaintiff’s brake-repair claim based on the actual costs incurred by the class members. Thus, the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motions for a new trial and for partial decertification of the class were a proper exercise of its discretion.

Lakeview Memorial Park Association v. Burlington County Construction Board of Appeals involves a novel question of whether the New Jersey Cemetery Act, N.J.S.A. 45:27-1 to -41, preempts local municipal regulation in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -63. Specifically, this opinion examines the interplay between the two statutory schemes to determine whether the local municipality has the power to require zoning permits pursuant to local ordinances for mausoleum construction where the Department of Community Affairs has already approved the site plans for the construction in accordance with N.J.S.A. 45:27-27(b). The Supreme Court’s only decision related to this matter, Trinity Cemetery Association v. Township of Wall, only speaks to municipal regulation of cemeteries in the Court’s concurrences, authored separately by Justice Zazzali and Justice Verniero, and does not speak directly to whether the Cemetery Act preempts municipal regulation pursuant to the MLUL. See 170 N.J. 39 (2001).

In reviewing this question, this opinion finds that the Legislature empowered the local municipalities, pursuant to the MLUL, to enact ordinances to regulate the use and development of land. As part of the regulation of land use and development, a municipality may require site plan approval to oversee the effect of the development on the public health and safety. The municipality’s power to regulate as such is not preempted by the DCA’s power to approve site plans for construction pursuant to the Cemetery Act. Therefore, the plaintiff-cemetery in this matter was required to follow municipal regulations and obtain the requisite zoning permits and site plan approval before beginning its mausoleum expansion project.

The prosecutor’s detailed account of Greene’s incriminating statement to his grandmother was not likely forgotten by the jury, despite the trial court’s best efforts in providing a curative instruction. That the prosecutor acted in good faith, moreover, did not abate the damage done to Greene’s ability to receive a fair trial, particularly because the evidence against him was not overwhelming and the prosecutor’s opening had the capacity to tip the scales in favor of a conviction. The Court therefore affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division ordering a new trial for Greene

Defendant Steven R. Fortin, whom juries twice convicted of a brutal 1994 sexual assault and murder, appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered scientific evidence that casts doubt on the reliability and scientific validity of bitemark identification. After a review of the change in this forensic area since defendant's most recent murder conviction in 2007, and in light of defendant's conviction for a subsequent brutal sexual attack involving similar bitemarks and the 2007 trial testimony questioning expert bitemark testimony, the court affirms.

The UFL does not authorize an affirmative cause of action against a bank but rather provides a bank with a limited immunity from liability for failing to take notice of and action on the breach of a fiduciary’s obligation. The UFL does not displace, subsume, or supplement common law claims. When an action is brought against a bank, the UFL provides that a bank’s liability depends on whether the bank acted with actual knowledge or bad faith in the face of a fiduciary’s breach of his obligations. Whether a UFL claim was adequately pled in this case is therefore a moot issue. And, recognizing the predominant role the UCC plays in assigning liability for the handling of checks, the Court also finds that Lembo had no “special relationship” with the bank to sustain the common law causes of action

A resident of a rooming house was stabbed to death by another resident. The assailant had recently been released from prison for a violent crime, although the rooming house owner and operator were not aware of that criminal history.

The decedent's estate brought a wrongful death and survival action against the rooming house owner and operator, arguing they had a duty to conduct a criminal background check before allowing the assailant to reside on the premises. The Law Division judge rejected that argument, and granted summary judgment to the defendants.

The court affirms, agreeing with the motion judge that the owner and operator of a New Jersey rooming house have no statutory or common-law duty to conduct criminal background checks of prospective new residents.

No statute or regulation in the State or opinion from another state has recognized such a duty. The imposition of such a duty also could have significant pubic ramifications.

An intrusion on privacy occurs when someone uses a private space where a spying device has been concealed and “the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. To bring a claim, the victim does not have to present direct evidence that she was secretly recorded. She can instead establish a case of intrusion on seclusion based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Here, however, there was not enough evidence in the summary judgment record to demonstrate, either directly or inferentially, that the plaintiffs who were dismissed used bathrooms with cameras in them during the relevant time period.

Defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap,and felony murder, and sentenced to a sixty-year prison term. In her appeal, defendant raised numerous issues regarding her convictions as well as the sentence imposed.

The court first agreed that the jury's verdict could only be understood as supporting a conviction of second-degree kidnapping, not first-degree kidnapping for which she was sentenced, because the jury was not asked to determine whether defendant "release[d] the victim unharmed and in a safe place prior to apprehension."N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(c)(1). The court, however, rejected defendant's argument that a new trial was required, holding instead, in accord with State v. Casilla, 362 N.J. Super. 554 (App. Div. 2003), that the verdict simply had to be molded to reflect a conviction of second-degree kidnapping.

Second, while the molding of the kidnapping conviction required resentencing, the court also mandated resentencing – and before a different judge – because the judge based the sentence on his declaration, based on his own understanding of the evidence, that defendant "ordered [the victim's] execution" even though the jury acquitted defendant of both first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The court held that, while federal constitutional principles may permit an enhancement of a sentence based on conduct for which the defendant was acquitted, see United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), New Jersey constitutional principles do not. Because an acquittal means the State failed to overcome the accused's presumption of innocence – leaving the accused's innocence "established," State v. Hill, 199 N.J. 545, 559 (2009) – the sentencing judge here violated defendant's due process rights and her right to trial by jury by disregarding the jury's acquittal verdict and enhancing the sentence because of his personal own view of the evidence.

Plaintiff commenced this collection action in July 2009, and in 2010 obtained a default judgment that defendant did not seek to vacate, under Rule 4:50, until 2018. The trial judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and found plaintiff's claim accrued no later than March 2004 – more than four years before the complaint was filed – meaning the action was time-barred when filed, N.J.S.A. 12A:2-725(1), and plaintiff's filing of the action violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 – 1692p. The judge, however, also determined that defendant's failure to respond to the complaint or plaintiff's post-judgment collection efforts was inexcusable. Balancing these circumstances, the trial judge concluded defendant was entitled to relief from the judgment and dismissal of the complaint.

In affirming, the court held that the judge's decision to vindicate the federal policy in favor of curbing "abusive debt collection practice" rather than the state interest in the finality of judgments was not an abuse of discretion.

This appeal requires the court to determine whether the assignment judge correctly granted defendant's motion to overrule the State's rejection of his petition for a Graves Act waiver pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2, "which embodies the so called 'escape valve' to the mandatory sentence requirements otherwise embodied in the Graves Act," N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c). State v. Alvarez, 246 N.J. Super. 137, 139 (App. Div. 1991). In granting defendant's application, the assignment judge concluded that based on the disparity in the prosecutor's treatment of similarly situated defendants and the discrepancy in the State's assessment of defendant's criminal record, defendant demonstrated "'arbitrariness constituting an unconstitutional discrimination or denial of equal protection' in the prosecutor's decision," State v. Benjamin, 228 N.J. 358, 372 (2017) (quoting Alvarez, 246 N.J. Super. at 148), that fell within the Alvarez proscription. The judge explained that while Benjamin precluded defendants challenging the denial of a Graves Act waiver from obtaining discovery of prosecutorial decisions in cases other than their own, as the judge responsible for reviewing all waiver cases, he was in the best position to determine whether the Alvarez standard had been violated. The court affirms the judge's decision and rejects the State's challenge. The court is satisfied that the judge's robust review and analysis were sound, and fulfilled the role contemplated in Benjamin, to "ensure[] that prosecutorial discretion is not unchecked." 228 N.J. at 373.

In these appeals, the court holds, as a matter of first impression, that a valid grand jury subpoena is sufficient to obtain prescription drug information maintained in New Jersey's Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) when law enforcement personnel are investigating a prescriber.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Millville and its police department under OPRA, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, seeking copies of DWI/DUI, drug possession, and drug paraphernalia summonses and complaints issued by Millville police officers. The trial judge granted relief but the court reversed. The court observed that the creation of a complaint-summons starts with a police officer – at the direction of the Attorney General – inputting information into an electronic system created and maintained by the Administrative Office of the Court. Once completed, the complaint-summons is retained by the municipal court, whose authority falls under the aegis of the judiciary. The court therefore held that the municipality and its police department are not the custodians of these records and they could not be compelled to search for and turnover these records in response to an OPRA request.

Defendants appeal the Chancery Division's denial of their motion to vacate a default judgment of mortgage foreclosure. Defendants' house was severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy, and they ceased paying their mortgage loan.

Defendants filed a federal lawsuit against their flood insurance company and homeowners' insurer policies, seeking payment for the storm damage. They named the mortgage holder as a co-defendant, claiming the storm extinguished their obligation to pay the mortgage. The federal court dismissed the complaint against all three defendants.

The mortgage holder's successor then filed the present state-court foreclosure action. Defendants defaulted and final judgment was entered against them. Defendants argue the foreclosure action was barred under the Entire Controversy Doctrine, because the mortgagee had the opportunity to file a counterclaim for foreclosure in the previous federal action.

This court affirms the Chancery judge's ruling that the foreclosure action was not barred by the Entire Controversy Doctrine.

The federal case seeking insurance payments lacked a sufficient nexus to the mortgage to preclude the foreclosure case. In addition, the mortgage holder's contractual right to direct the use of any insurance proceeds does not eliminate the mortgage debt or the right to foreclose on the defaulted loan.

This non-dissolution case addresses whether partition of a residence remains an equitable remedy among unmarried, cohabitating intimates engaged in a joint venture following 2010 amendments to the Statute of Frauds – a question of first impression.

In 2010, the Statute of Frauds was amended to extend its writing requirement to any “promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide support or other consideration for the other party.” N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). Although the amendment clearly made unwritten palimony agreements unenforceable, no published opinion has yet addressed whether, in the absence of a writing, the equitable remedy of partition among unmarried, cohabitating intimates survived.

Here, although the deed and mortgage to the home were in S.R.’s name only, C.N. was heavily involved in the home’s purchase by, among other things: communicating with the realtor; providing $10,000 of the $15,000 down payment; being solely responsible for the inspection; negotiating a $10,000 seller’s concession; and being a named insured. Once in the home, although S.R. largely paid the monthly mortgage, C.N. was responsible for the majority of the home’s upkeep costs, such as gas, electric, water, sewer, security, landscaping services, garbage, and pest control. He oversaw contractors. He purchased furniture. And, he worked with a lawyer to appeal a tax assessment.

After reviewing pre-amendment precedent, the plain text of the statutory amendment that used palimony language from a precedential Appellate Division opinion, and the legislative history undergirding enactment of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) – legislative history that expressly discussed palimony caselaw, yet was silent as to partition – the court holds that, in the absence of a writing, partition of a residence remains an equitable remedy among unmarried, cohabitating intimates engaged in a joint venture.

Viewing the trial record in its entirety, the detective’s testimony, in context, did not compel the inference that he had superior knowledge incriminating defendant from a non-testifying witness. The testimony therefore did not violate defendant’s confrontation right or the hearsay rule. Although there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the testimony here, the Court cautions against using the phrase “based on the evidence collected” in this context and provides guidance as to curative instructions