Opinion Summaries

A court issued wiretap orders pursuant to the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -37, which were later suppressed. The estate of an aggrieved person moved to unseal the intercepted conversations and evidence derived for use in a state civil forfeiture action and a federal civil rights action. The Appellate Division holds disclosure for use in civil litigation is permissible "upon a showing of good cause" under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-17(c), and disapproves the contrary ruling in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Spinelli, 212 N.J. Super. 526 (Law Div. 1986). Section 17(c) has no federal counterpart under Title III, which does not prevent such disclosure of the fruits of a state wiretap order. Suppression does not preclude disclosure in these circumstances.

The trial court may order disclosure only if the need for disclosure outweighs the harms disclosure is likely to cause, subject to review for abuse of discretion. If a disclosure would reveal a person was a confidential informant for a particular agency, in a particular investigation, during a particular period, or in a particular way, the court must consider whether it is publicly known that the person cooperated with that agency, in that investigation, during that period, or in that way.

The panel reversed the Division of Child Protection and Permanency's administrative finding that an allegation a father abused or neglected his young daughter was "not established" rather than "unfounded." N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(3), (4). The finding meant there was some, but not a preponderance of evidence, he harmed her or "placed [her] at risk of harm." The Division's finding was unreasonable because its investigation was incomplete. The Division did not consider evidence related to an order to show cause the father's estranged wife filed in their pending divorce, or a video she took of the incident. A matrimonial judge ordered the Division to investigate both parents, but it only investigated the father. The Division's finding also lacked sufficient support in the record the Division did compile. The father tried to stop his daughter from throwing things during a tantrum by holding her arms. She broke free and fell, but suffered no injury. That evidence did not show that he placed her at risk of harm.

An individual who has been discharged from probation, albeit with an imperfect record while on probation, and who has subsequently paid all outstanding fines, is not barred from applying for expungement. The trial court erred in holding that petitioner was barred for applying for expungement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a)(2), because she was discharged from probation "without improvement."

Gourmet Dining, LLC v. Union Township, Kean University, andNew Jersey Educational Facilities Authority; Docket Nos. 016504-2013 and 012334-2014, opinion by Novin, J.T.C., decided March 14, 2018.For Gourmet Dining, LLC and Kean University – David B. Wolfe (Skoloff & Wolfe, P.C., attorneys); for defendant – Robert F. Renaud (Palumbo,Renaud & DeAppolonio, LLC, attorneys); for New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority – Marlene Brown (Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). The court concluded that the portion of Kean University’s New Jersey Center for Science, Technology, and Mathematics building occupied, operated, and managed by Gourmet Dining, LLC, as Ursino restaurant was subject to local property tax for the 2013 and 2014 tax years. The court determined that Ursino restaurant was not a Kean University dining hall, and did not participate in, and was not part of, any meal plan offered by Kean University to its students, faculty, or administrators. Additionally, Ursino did not accept the students’ flexible dining currencies, or offer discounted meals to University students, faculty, or administrators. Thus, Ursino was not devoted to serving the basic needs of the University’s student body, faculty, or administrators, and failed to furnish a service directly related to the functions of government under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3. Moreover, Ursino’s operation was a private, profit-making commercial enterprise, and the payment of fees by Gourmet Dining, LLC to Kean University Foundation did not make the premises occupied by Ursino restaurant a building used for colleges, schools, academies or seminaries, as contemplated under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. Finally, the court concluded that the New Jersey Center for Science, Technology and Mathematics building is an educational facility under the New Jersey educational facilities authority law, N.J.S.A. 18A:72A-2 to -83. However, the operation and management of Ursino restaurant was not a project of the New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority. Significantly, Gourmet Dining, LLC was not an agent of the New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, as such term is construed under N.J.S.A. 18A:72A:18. Therefore, application of N.J.S.A. 18A:72A-18 to Gourmet Dining, LLC’s use, occupancy, operation, and management of Ursino restaurant does not afford it an exemption from local property tax. (39

The court reverses the denial of defendants' motion to suppress drugs and guns found after a plain view sighting through the open door of an apartment. The police used a tool to force entry into the locked apartment building twice before approaching the fourth-floor apartment door. The State, conceding a lack of probable cause, argued that the forced entry into the building did not violate defendants' expectation of privacy because of the size of the apartment building. The court refused to "condone the police forcing entry into a locked residential apartment building while on an investigative hunt for suspected criminal activity."

Finding the pace of the proceedings here to be glacial in comparison to that which the Court found "troubling" in Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166, 194 (2015), the court concluded that the Department of Children and Families' inexcusable failure to provide complete discovery for a period of years – a circumstance that delayed the start of an evidentiary hearing about events that occurred more than six years earlier – fully justified an ALJ's dismissal of the Department's abuse and license-removal proceedings against the defendant and warranted the court's conclusion that the Department's reversal of the ALJ's ruling was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

Sufficient credible evidence supported the trial court’s determination that defendant was given an adequate opportunity to present the vehicle’s registration before the search commenced. When a driver is unwilling or unable to present proof of a vehicle’s ownership, a police officer may conduct a limited search for the registration papers in the areas where they are likely kept in the vehicle. When a police officer can readily determine that the driver or passenger is the lawful possessor of the vehicle—despite an inability to produce the registration—a warrantless search for proof of ownership will not be justified.

The court holds that the New Jersey Uniform Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-1 to -32, does not require an arbitrator to hold an in-person hearing at a physical location. Thus, unless the parties contract for an in-person arbitration hearing, or they show specialized need for such a hearing, arbitrators can conduct hearings by telephone conference or by other electronic means.

Accordingly, the court affirms an order that denied the application of defendant Hereford Insurance Company to compel an arbitration organization, Arbitration Forums, Inc., to hold an in-person arbitration hearing concerning the reimbursement of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.

The Court finds no valid inventory search and therefore affirms the Appellate Division’s determination that the evidence seized during the search should be suppressed.

The court granted the State's motion for leave to appeal in these four appeals involving seven juveniles, all charged with crimes or disorderly persons offenses under Title 35 and 36 of the Criminal Code. N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-71(b) provides such complaints "shall be referred for court action, unless the prosecutor otherwise consents to diversion." When the complaints were screened by intake services, the prosecutor did not consent.

In two of the appeals, the Family Part judge, without notice or hearing, diverted complaints charging the juveniles with criminal offenses, concluding that N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-73(a), vested the judge, not the prosecutor, with discretion to divert any juvenile complaint. The court reversed, noting that Rule 5:20-1(c) provides complaints charging juveniles with crimes "shall not be diverted unless the prosecutor consents thereto."

In the other two appeals, the juveniles were charged with disorderly persons offenses under Title 35 and 36 of the Criminal Code. In one of the appeals, the judge diverted the case without any hearing. The court reversed.

In the other appeal, the judge held a hearing, noted the prosecutor's objection and ordered diversion. The court affirmed, concluding that although the failure to include these offenses within the scope of Rule 5:20-1(c) may have been inadvertent, the plain language of the Rule did not limit the judge's discretion to divert the complaints over the State's objection. The court referred the opinion to the Committee on Practice in the Family Part for consideration.

Empower Our Neighborhoods (EON), a community based advocacy group, partially succeeded on an election law claim. They obtained a judgment eliminating the district residency requirements, pursuant to Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), for circulators of: recall petitions, petitions nominating independent candidates in general elections, petitions selecting candidates from local parties, and petitions nominating Board of Education members. The court affirmed Judge Mary Jacobson's decision that EON's success was sufficient to merit the award of counsel fees, apportioned among the defendants based on the extent of their responsibility for the constitutional tort.

The court remanded for a new trial a criminal matter in which the jury was instructed only as to murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11 3(a)(1). One of two co-defendants testified at trial that he unwittingly killed the victim while struggling to take a gun away from someone——not the victim——who was trying to shoot him. He was convicted of murder, and his co-defendant was also convicted of murder as his accomplice. The court concluded the jury should have also been given a molded self-defense instruction, N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(a), and been instructed as to the lesser-includeds of aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11 4(a)(1), and manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1). The failure to do so prejudiced defendants' rights to a fair trial.

The court addresses certain legal questions that arise when a case that involves the custody of a child under a Title 9 abuse or neglect FN complaint filed by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency is interrupted by a private custody case initiated by a member of the child’s family. To ensure legal protection for the parents, the court suggests a method of handling FD non-dissolution complaints when they are heard in the midst of FN abuse or neglect litigation. The FD hearing should be incorporated into the FN litigation and attorneys for the parents and children should participate. The court does not reverse here because the mother consented to the result. The court also affirms the finding of educational neglect and the dismissal of the FN litigation despite the objection of the mother.

In this medical malpractice action, defendant's trial testimony concerning reliance on a medical publication in treating plaintiff was materially different from his denial during discovery of any knowledge of such literature. The court's majority holds defense counsel's failure to discharge his duty of candor to the court and counsel by disclosing the anticipated material change in defendant's testimony resulted in plain error, and the trial court erred by denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

The dissent concludes counsel's failure to object to defendant's testimony was part of a deliberate trial strategy, as the publication at issue supported plaintiffs' theory of the case. Considered in the context of the extensive expert testimony presented during a lengthy trial, defendant's testimony about the medical article did not constitute plain error, and the trial court did not err by so holding when it denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Hearsay is generally admissible in a VOP hearing. When assessing the State’s ability to rely on hearsay to satisfy its proof obligation without contravening a defendant’s due process rights, a court fundamentally should consider the State’s reasons for relying on hearsay forms of evidence and the reliability of the evidence for its proposed purpose. In this matter, the State failed to provide any justification for relying on hearsay, and the hearsay evidence was not sufficiently reliable for its asserted purpose of substantiating the new criminal charges against defendant.

The court granted leave to resolve the issue of whether the competency statutes of the criminal code, specifically N.J.S.A. 2C:4-4 to -6, apply to juveniles. We conclude the statutes do apply to juveniles, and that N.J.S.A. 2C:4-5(a)(2) requires the Department of Human Services, or its successor, to provide or arrange for examination of a juvenile for fitness to proceed as DHS would for an adult, with such accommodation for the juvenile's youth as is necessary and appropriate.

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court ruled the fictitious pleading process under Rule 4:26-4 did not justify plaintiff's addition of three defendant physicians to the lawsuit after the statute of limitations had run. Nevertheless, the court equitably estopped the physicians from obtaining dismissal of the claims against them, finding they had had unduly delayed in moving for such dispositive relief after about a year of costly discovery had occurred.

The panel reverses the trial court's fictitious pleading ruling as to one of the three co-defendants, because decedent's hospital records did not legibly reveal that particular doctor's name and involvement in decedent's care. It was unreasonable to expect plaintiff to have ascertained that particular doctor's identity and negligent conduct until her counsel received a post-suit affidavit from the defense clarifying which doctors had actually been involved in treating decedent.

The panel affirms the trial court's fictitious pleading ruling as to the other two co-defendants. Plaintiff could have reasonably ascertained the respective identities and involvement of those two doctors who took part in decedent's care.

As an important caveat, the panel allows plaintiff's claims to proceed against those two doctors to the extent they may have acted as the decedent's "attending physician." The hospital records misleadingly and erroneously identified a different doctor, who was actually on vacation at the time, as decedent's attending physician.

Lastly, the panel overturns the court's application of principles of equitable estoppel. In the absence of a case management order or court rule prescribing an earlier deadline for filing such a motion, or an express misrepresentation made to plaintiff, defendants did not forfeit their rights to file a limitations-based dismissal motion near the end of the discovery period.

The court affirms the Public Employment Relations Commission's ruling that the contribution rates included in the Pension and Health Care Benefits Act (Chapter 78) L. 2011, c. 78, N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c, which top out at thirty-five percent, do not preempt the provision in the parties' contract requiring eligible retirees to contribute fifty percent of the costs of their health care coverage.

Christian Mission John 316 v. Passaic City; Docket No. 013203-2013, opinion by Novin, J.T.C., decided February 28, 2018. For plaintiff – Tova L. Lutz (Lutz Law Group, LLC, attorneys); for defendants – Kenneth A. Porro (Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Capuzzo, P.C., attorneys). The court concluded that a former commercial warehouse building, undergoing substantial renovations to convert it into a church sanctuary, offices, and meeting space, was not in actual use as of the assessing date under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. Thus, the property was not entitled to an exemption from local property tax for the 2013 tax year. The taxpayer’s goal, intent, or objective to furnish religious services for public benefit, at some future date, was insufficient to establish the requisite quid pro quo required under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. The court interpreted the phrase “actually used” under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, as implying that the use cannot be achieved at the expense of the safety, welfare, and wellbeing of the public, the intended beneficiaries of the non-profit entity’s bounty.

The court affirmed a judgment finding an indenture trustee's duties are limited to the obligations spelled out in the bond documents, and to associated non-discretionary ministerial functions. Accordingly, the indenture trustee had no duty to advise the mortgagor regarding the deferred interest provision in the bond documents. Furthermore, the Comparative Negligence Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1 to -5.8, did apply, and since the mortgagor's lack of familiarity with the terms of the financing agreement constituted negligence greater than that of the bank, the mortgagor could not recover against the bank. Finally, the bank was not entitled to counsel fees it incurred when defending against claims of its own ordinary negligence.