Opinion Summaries

The Pennsylvania detectives violated Edwards by attempting to question Wint in Camden after his earlier request for counsel, and Wint did not initiate the interrogation that occurred in Bucks County. The giving of repeated Miranda warnings did not cure the Edwards violation. Wint remained in continuous pre-indictment custody for six months before the questioning in Bucks County. Pre-indictment, pretrial detainment does not qualify as a break in custody under Shatzer, and none of the exceptions set forth in Edwards apply here. Edwards requires suppression of Wint’s incriminating statement concerning the shooting in Camden. The admission of that statement was not harmless error.

When exculpatory evidence is disclosed after a detention hearing, judges should use a modified materiality standard to decide whether to reopen the hearing. If there is a reasonable possibility that the result of the detention hearing would have been different had the evidence been disclosed, the hearing should be reopened. Applying that standard in this case, the Court reverses and remands to the trial court to reopen the detention hearing.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendants' interference with plaintiff's efforts to purchase property for use as a group home for autistic individuals violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. The court concluded, as the LAD makes clear, that it is, in fact, unlawful to discriminate against a buyer because of the disability of a person intending to live on the premises, even if the buyer does not fit within a protected class, N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1, and that it is, with a discriminatory intent, unlawful to interfere with another's transaction, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(n). In reversing the motion judge's dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e), the court also rejected the application of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine to the claim that defendants sabotaged plaintiff's efforts to secure a grant from the Monmouth Conservation Fund; that nonprofit foundation was not shown to be a governmental or quasi-governmental body.

The Court reaffirms New Jersey’s longstanding adherence to the principle that a competent litigant may represent himself or herself in a matter in which he or she is a party, subject to exceptions set forth in statutes, court rules, and case law. No such exception is prescribed by the statute that governs this case. Although a parent’s decision to appear pro se in this complex and consequential litigation represents poor strategy in all but the rarest case, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.4 plainly authorizes that parent to proceed unrepresented. The parent’s right of self-representation, however, is by no means absolute. That right must be exercised in a manner that permits a full and fair adjudication of the dispute and a prompt and equitable permanency determination for the child. In this case, the court properly denied J.J.’s untimely and ambivalent claim.

Within fifteen years of having been convicted of "sex offenses," see N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(b), and sentenced to probation, each registrant was convicted of another offense. After fifteen offense-free years following those convictions, registrants moved to be relieved of their registration obligations pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), which provides in relevant part:

[A] person required to register under this act may make application to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the obligation upon proof that the person has not committed an offense within 15 years following conviction or release from a correctional facility for any term of imprisonment imposed, whichever is later, and is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.

The Law Division judges denied relief, concluding essentially that conviction for any offense within fifteen years of the conviction of or release from imprisonment for the underlying sex offense permanently barred relief.

The court reversed, concluding that although the statute was ambiguous, permanently barring relief was 1) contrary to the Legislature's intent and the remedial purposes of Megan's Law; and 2) inconsistent with N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c), which permits termination of community/parole supervision for life "upon proof . . . that the person has not committed a crime for [fifteen] years since the last conviction or release from incarceration, . . . and . . . is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others if released from parole supervision."

In this vehicular negligence action, the court holds that the cumulative impact of multiple errors, including defense counsel's improprieties, the trial court's denial of a directed verdict as to defendant's negligence, and the trial court's grant of defendant's in limine motion to bar plaintiff's life care expert, deprived plaintiff of a fair trial. The court reverses the order of judgment entered on the jury's verdict and remands for a new trial.

Plaintiff New Jersey Transit Corporation appealed from the summary judgment dismissal of its subrogation action against the tortfeasors for reimbursement of the workers' compensation benefits paid to an injured employee for wage loss and medical expenses resulting from a work-related automobile accident. Plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury within the meaning of the limitation on lawsuit option under AICRA, and did not seek recovery from the tortfeasors. The motion judge held AICRA trumped the WCA, ruling that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) barred NJ Transit's claims because NJ Transit, as subrogee, stands in the shoes of the injured employee, and has no rights superior to the injured employee under AICRA. Since the injured worker was compensated by workers' compensation benefits for his medical expenses and wage loss; he suffered no uncompensated economic loss. The motion judge held NJ Transit's claim must be dismissed because AICRA bars claims for compensated economic damages.

The court reverses the summary judgment dismissal, holding the workers’ compensation carrier is permitted to pursue its Section 40 claim for reimbursement of the worker's compensation benefits paid to the injured employee against the third-party tortfeasors. If successful, the workers' compensation carrier would be reimbursed by the tortfeasors, subject to their right to indemnification from their own automotive insurers. Therefore, allowing such recovery does not conflict with AICRA's collateral source rule, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-6.

Regarding the interplay of the WCA and AICRA, where only workers' compensation benefits and PIP benefits are available, the primary burden is placed on workers' compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-6. Where only PIP benefits and tortfeasor liability are involved, the primary burden is placed on the PIP carrier by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. However, where both workers' compensation benefits and the proceeds of a tort action have been recovered, the tort recovery is primary pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-40(f). In turn, where workers' compensation benefits have been paid, but the injured employee has not sought or obtained recovery from the tortfeasor, the primary burden is placed on the tortfeasor.

The court reverses the Family Part order entered under the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA), N.J.S.A. 2C:14-13 to -21. SASPA cannot be used to impose a restraining order on defendant based on conduct that occurred before SASPA's effective date. SASPA does not permit such retroactive application. The Family Part judge heard credible testimony from plaintiff that defendant had intercourse with her in 2005 when she was eleven. The Family Part judge correctly concluded the 2005 incident of intercourse was a sexual assault, however the 2005 assault was not a predicate act triggering the right to SASPA protection because SASPA was not signed into law until 2015.

Plaintiff, a shareholder in a closely-held corporation, brought an action against the only other shareholder, asserting both direct claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and derivative shareholder claims alleging breach of fiduciary trust, mismanagement, conversion, and fraud. Following the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial judge dismissed the action in its entirety without prejudice for lack of standing.

The court reverses the dismissal of plaintiff's direct claims of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and remands those claims to the trial court to render a decision on the merits, finding plaintiff had standing to pursue those direct claims.

The court rejects plaintiff's argument that the prior denial of defendant's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted constituted the law of the case. The court affirms the dismissal without prejudice of the remaining derivative claims because it is unable to determine from the record if allowing the derivative claims to proceed would prejudice the corporation's creditors.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendant’s two prior DWI convictions here. Although the Court imposes no per se exclusion of prior DWI convictions in a prosecution for vehicular homicide while intoxicated, this case does not present the rare circumstances that would render their admission appropriate.

The court remands to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for reconsideration and the articulation of appropriate reasons for the sanctions imposed on the inmate consistent with N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.17(a) and Mejia v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 446 N.J. Super. 369, 378-79 (App. Div. 2016). The court suggests the DOC amend its regulations so that particularized reasons for sanctions are provided in all future disciplinary matters.

In this appeal, plaintiff argues that she was entitled to have the post-judgment motion judge establish the marital lifestyle pursuant to Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000) notwithstanding a waiver of that determination at the time the judgment of divorce was entered; and that she was entitled to an increase in her alimony payment. Affirming denial of her motion, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the court was obligated to conduct a Crews analysis post-judgment because: their Property Settlement Agreement was recently entered; did not reserve such a determination; and was not the product of coercion or duress. Consequently, the court found no basis to impute a higher income to defendant and increase plaintiff's alimony payments.

In this appeal, defendant argued that she was an oppressed minority shareholder under N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(1)(c) even though she contracted to be an employee at-will. After serving as plaintiff's Chief Financial Officer for thirteen years, she claimed that she had a reasonable expectation of continued employment and that her at-will designation was irrelevant and erroneous. A Consent Order entered by the parties in prior litigation between them validated their Shareholder Agreement and confirmed defendant's at-will status.

The court rejected defendant's reliance upon unpublished out-of-state cases as factually distinguishable and unpersuasive that defendant urged us to adopt for the proposition that an oppressed shareholder may have an expectation of continued employment. The court declined to do so, and affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of defendant's counterclaim on the basis that her at-will status was paramount.

Defendant challenged plaintiff's right to foreclose, arguing N.J.S.A. 12A:3-309 precluded the enforcement of a note, lost prior to the assignment of a concomitant mortgage, because plaintiff never owned or controlled the underlying debt. The court interpreted the statute as allowing the enforcement of a lost note where the assignor – which provided a lost-note affidavit to plaintiff – possessed the note and was entitled to enforce it when the loss occurred, and plaintiff proved the terms of the note and its right to enforce it.

The trial court's order compelling defendant to disclose the passcodes to his cell phones does not violate his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because, although the defendant's act of producing the passcodes conveyed implicit facts as to the ownership, control, and ability to access the phones, the conveyance of these facts was a foregone conclusion because defendant did not give the State any information it did not already possess. The order also does not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination under New Jersey's common law, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-19, or N.J.R.E. 503.

The court reverses two murder convictions. The motion to suppress a photograph of a gun and ammunition similar to that used in the double murder should have been granted because the photograph was mistakenly provided by Sprint in response to a communications data warrant (CDW) that did not seek photographs. The State argued that the photograph was in plain view, but as the file containing the photograph was clearly identified as a photograph, and labeled as outside the time frame of the CDW, the court rejects the plain view argument. Admission of that photograph was not harmless error, given the State's repeated emphasis on the photograph in summation as well as the fact that the jury declared itself deadlocked three times.

Defendant challenges the denial of his fourth petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), arising from a 1984 murder conviction. He contends that the revised waiver statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1), effective March 1, 2016, should have been retroactively applied by the PCR judge pursuant to our holding in State in Interest of J.F., 446 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2016). Although defendant was fourteen years and one month of age at the time he committed the crime, we hold N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(1), which does not authorize waiver to adult court of a juvenile under the age of fifteen, has no retroactive application where a defendant's conviction and sentence have been adjudicated with finality.

The Special Master’s findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record, and the Court adopts them. Breath test results produced by Alcotest machines not calibrated using a NIST-traceable thermometer are inadmissible.

In this appeal involving an interstate custody dispute, the court reverses the Family Part's order denying the South Dakota mother's motion to dismiss. Applying the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court concludes the Family Part initially exercised jurisdiction in 2016 based on a mistaken finding that New Jersey was the children's "home state," as the parties' twin daughters did not reside here for six consecutive months immediately before the father filed suit. Furthermore, the trial court should have determined, by the time it decided defendant's motion to dismiss over a year later, that New Jersey lacked "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction," because both parties and their daughters had long been absent from New Jersey, they lacked a significant connection here, and substantial relevant evidence was no longer available here. In any event, New Jersey had become an inconvenient forum. The court remands the case for a stay of further proceedings in anticipation of dismissal.

This court invalidated an arbitration agreement because the parties did not understand the rights that ostensibly foreclosed plaintiff's right to a jury trial. They could have designated an arbitral institution (like AAA or JAMS) or they could have communicated a general method for selecting a different arbitration setting. Identifying the arbitration process is important because it provides a "meeting of the minds" about what replaced a judicial adjudication. Here, the agreement ignored the subject altogether. This court therefore reversed the order compelling arbitration for lack of mutual assent and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.