Opinion Summaries

     A jury convicted defendant on several offenses, including two counts of second-degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a).  The terroristic threats convictions related to statements defendant directed at the victim, who presided as the judge over defendant's municipal court case.  Defendant was also convicted of making the threats during a declared period of national, State or county emergency, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Defendant argued the terroristic threats convictions should be reversed because the jury was not charged pursuant to State v. Fair, 256 N.J. 213 (2024), on whether a reasonable person similarly situated to the victim, in this case a municipal court judge with several years of experience as an attorney and a prosecutor, would have viewed defendant's words as threatening violence.  Defendant also raised an as-applied substantive due process challenge to his conviction for making the threats during a declared emergency, arguing there was no nexus between his threats and the state of emergency. 
    The court reversed the terroristic threats convictions and ruled Fair has pipeline retroactivity.  Although defense counsel seemingly argued the Fair standard in summations, the trial court charged the jury under the then-existing model charges, which did not provide an objective means of measuring whether defendant's statements constituted terroristic threats.  
     The court also held where the State seeks to enhance a third-degree terroristic threats offense by charging a defendant with making threats during a declared period of national, State or county emergency, there must be some rational relationship between the threats and the underlying emergency.  Otherwise, the conviction will be vulnerable to an as-applied challenge for vagueness on substantive due process grounds.  Reversal was warranted here because the threats defendant directed at the victim did not result from or having anything to do with the pandemic or pandemic-related restrictions, and his municipal court case.
 

STATE TAXATION – TOBACCO AND VAPORS PRODUCT TAX
Tax Court: Barrister Cigars, LLC v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, Docket No. 009089-2022; opinion by Sundar, P.J.T.C., decided April 1, 2025.  For plaintiff - Matthew D. Lee, Esq., Jonathan M. Wasser, Esq. (Fox Rothschild, LLP, attorney); for defendant - Michael J. O’Malley, Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Held: Plaintiff, a retailer but also a “distributor” as that term is defined by the Tobacco and Vapors Product Tax (“TPT”) Act (“TPT Act”), is not barred from using the “wholesale price” as the base for computing its TPT liability simply because it does not purchase tobacco products directly from the manufacturer.  However, because “wholesale price” is statutorily defined as the “actual price for which a manufacturer sells tobacco products to a distributor,” plaintiff cannot use estimates provided by its suppliers as the base for computing its TPT liability.  Plaintiff should be given an opportunity at trial to prove the “wholesale price” of its tobacco purchases for the tax years at issue with objective and credible evidence.  Therefore, the court denies both parties’ summary judgment motion on this issue.

In addition, there is no statutory authority for a distributor to deduct estimated federal excise tax from the tax base.  Therefore, the court grants defendant’s summary judgment on this issue.

(29 Pages)

The Court disagrees with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that it was the arbitrator, not the parties, who introduced the question of carried interest in the arbitration. The remedy of modification under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a)(2) is not warranted in this case, and the Appellate Division’s review of the award did not conform to the deferential standard governing judicial review of arbitration awards

     As a matter of first impression, the court addressed the procedural issue of whether the trial court properly entertained plaintiffs' motions to dismiss after they had filed an answer to defendant's counterclaim asserting a defense under Rule 4:6-2(e) or whether plaintiffs were required to file the motion prior to filing their answer.  The court concluded the trial court correctly considered the motion under Rule 4:6-2.  It determined that Rule 4:6-2, when read in conjunction with Rule 4:6-3, contemplates that a party who raises a Rule 4:6-2(e) defense in its answer will be permitted to make an application to the court prior to trial in much the same way as a motion for summary judgment.
    The court also addressed whether, in considering defendant's counterclaims for defamation and trade libel, the trial court properly determined plaintiff's statement that defendant was a criminal or engaged in criminal behavior was substantially true and therefore a defense to these causes of action, even though defendant was never convicted of a crime. The court concluded that a conviction is not necessary to render substantially truthful a statement that a person was a criminal or engaged in criminal behavior, and defendant's admissions during her testimony in an underlying federal criminal prosecution rendered plaintiff's statements substantially true irrespective of whether there is a record of a successful prosecution against her.
 

     This appeal raises a question of first impression under New Jersey law, requiring the court to consider the interplay between the right against self-incrimination, the right to privacy in one's home and effects, and the right to the assistance of counsel.  Following defendant's arrest for assaulting his daughters, police administered Miranda warnings and defendant asserted his right to confer with an attorney.  The interrogation process immediately ceased.  Police went back to the still detained defendant a few hours later and asked him to consent to a search of his home, which he granted.  Defendant contends that police did not scrupulously honor his earlier request to consult with an attorney, rendering his consent invalid.  
     The court surveyed cases in other jurisdictions and analyzed different options for how to account for defendant's request to confer with an attorney:  (1) treat the prior request as a factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances test used to determine whether consent was given voluntarily; (2) require police when asking for consent to clarify whether a prior request to confer with counsel pertained only to the right against self-incrimination and not to the waiver of other constitutional rights; or (3) treat the prior request to confer with an attorney as a per se bar from asking for consent.  After considering the heightened protections accorded to suspects in custody under the New Jersey Constitution and common law, New Jersey's history and tradition of honoring the protective role that defense attorneys play, and the stricter rules in this State for proving the validity of a consent search, the court establishes a bright-line rule to provide clear guidance to police:  when a person in custody asks to speak with an attorney, police may not thereafter ask the arrestee to consent to a search when there has been no break in custody.  Doing so renders the consent presumptively involuntary.  
     In this case, the trial judge found that the State met its burden of proving the elements of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule by clear and convincing evidence.  The court finds no error in the trial judge's application of the inevitable discovery doctrine and affirms defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of the assault firearm and large capacity ammunition magazines police found when executing the consent search.
     The court also affirms defendant's conviction for endangering the welfare of a child, rejecting defendant's contention the trial judge erred in instructing the jury by failing to sua sponte redact language in the model jury charge not pertinent to the evidence presented by the prosecutor.  The court, however, reverses and remands for a new trial on the downgraded simple assault charges because the judge did not adequately respond to a question posed by the jury concerning a parent's authority to use corporal punishment.

     The primary issue addressed by the court in this appeal is whether the indictment of a partner in a law firm, who withdrew his appearance following the indictment, creates a conflict of interest requiring the law firm to be disqualified from representing defendants, the State of New Jersey and other State entities.  Because the underlying indictment was not related to the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, and contract claims filed by plaintiff in the civil action, the court concluded no conflict of interest existed pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Office of the Attorney General, Outside Counsel Guidelines (2022).  The court affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for disqualification.

REALTY TRANSFER FEE – REFUND CLAIM OF 1% GRANTEE FEE - FARM – MANSION TAX

Tax Court: Matrix Bordentown, Lot 2, LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation, Docket No. 013007-2019; opinion by Bedrin Murray, J.T.C., decided March 25, 2025.  For plaintiff – Joseph G. Buro (Zipp & Tannenbaum, LLC, attorneys); for defendant – Anthony D. Tancini (Matthew Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Held:  Plaintiff challenges defendant’s denial of its claim for refund of the one percent realty transfer fee imposed on a grantee in transfers greater than $1,000,000 for certain classes of real property. In cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties urge contrary interpretations of N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(a)2(a), which imposes the fee upon the transfer of Class 3A farm property that includes a building or structure “intended or suited for residential use.” The fee includes any other real property transferred to the same grantee in conjunction with the 3A farm property.  N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(a)(2)(b). In this matter, plaintiff purchased the property to develop as an industrial site. The transfer consisted of three subparcels, including a half-acre lot containing a vacant and dilapidated farmhouse which plaintiff intended to demolish. At deed recordation, plaintiff was assessed a transfer fee of one percent of the total deed consideration of $4,703,160 based on the existence of a structure intended for residential use on the 3A farm parcel. Plaintiff contends that by “intended”, the Legislature meant the intent of the grantee as to the future use of the farmhouse, and that by “suited for”, the Legislature meant suitable for habitation. The court concludes that the plain language of the statute militates against this interpretation. Further, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended for the application of the 1% fee to be decided based on subjective measurements. Moreover, defendant’s interpretation of tax statutes carries a presumption of validity. Provided defendant’s application of tax statutes is not plainly unreasonable, the court shall accord due deference to same. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.  

(13 Pages)

     The court held a Track One Recovery Court candidate is legally eligible for entry into Recovery Court under the second section of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(5), where a firearms charge has been resolved and is no longer pending at the time the applicant seeks admission into Recovery Court.

The WPL defines “wages” as “direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or commission basis.” N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1(c) (emphasis added). Under that definition, compensating an employee by paying a “commission” for “labor or services” always constitutes a wage under the WPL. Therefore, a “commission” under the WPL cannot be excluded from the definition of “wages” as a “supplementary incentive.”

     The State appealed the trial court order granting defendant Thomas Canales' motion to dismiss the seven-count indictment for sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal sexual contact relating to three girls under the age of thirteen and one adult female, in separate incidences occurring over a four-month period.  Two successive jury trials were held on all charges, with the first declared a mistrial based on jury deadlock.  The second trial led to a conviction, which the court vacated and remanded for retrial based on an evidentiary error.  On remand, the trial court dismissed the indictment under the fundamental fairness doctrine applying the factors articulated in State v. Abbati, 99 N.J. 418 (1985).
     On appeal, the court concluded the trial judge mistakenly exercised discretion in dismissing the indictment.  The trial judge overlooked the court's prior conclusion that the State proffered substantial evidence during the second trial while evaluating the strength of the State's case, and erroneously weighed putative testimony subject to a jury's credibility determination on retrial.  The court concluded that, on this record, consideration of the Abbati factors and prevailing law warranted reversal and remand for a new trial.

 

An individual outside the reach of New Jersey’s jurisdiction is not a party within the definition of the CNA for purposes of allocation. But that individual may be a joint tortfeasor for purposes of seeking contribution under the JTCL. The Court therefore affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division, as modified.

The Court’s review of the record reveals that Respondent invited a subordinate court employee to his summer home, provided beer and shots of hard liquor that the two drank liberally over the course of several hours, discussed intimate details of the employee’s sexual relationship with her boyfriend, and then touched her in a sexually suggestive manner without her consent. Because of the blatant and serious nature of Respondent’s misconduct, the Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that there is cause for removal.

     Former redeveloper Blackridge Realty, Inc. ("Blackridge") challenged the legality of an amendment ("Plan Amendment") to the City of Long Branch's ("City") Redevelopment Plan and a two-million-dollar payment made by redeveloper 290 Ocean, LLC to the City as part of its redevelopment agreement.
     290 Ocean proposed a redevelopment project to the City that would require an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan.  The resulting Plan Amendment relaxed several previous restrictions contained within the original Redevelopment Plan that had applied to Blackridge's redevelopment project.  The City's planner, City council, and mayor all approved the Plan Amendment, finding it consistent with the City's Master Plan and in the City's best interest.  The City and 290 Ocean negotiated a redeveloper agreement, which included a provision requiring 290 Ocean to pay a two-million-dollar fee to the City to be used to partially off-set the cost to construct a senior center.  
     Soon after the Plan Amendment was adopted and 290 Ocean's redeveloper agreement with the City was finalized, Blackridge filed a Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs challenging the Plan Amendment's legality and the payment.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the City and 290 Ocean.  
     The court concludes 290 Ocean's two-million-dollar payment was a lawful, negotiated fee intended to defray the City's costs as authorized in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(f) of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law ("LRHL").  It determines the LRHL does not impose any restrictions limiting payments to the recovery of costs the municipality will incur as a direct result of the redevelopment project, as long as the fee is negotiated at arm's length and collected to effectuate the purposes of the LRHL and the City's Master Plan.  Unlike the Municipal Land Use Law ("MLUL"), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-42, the LRHL contains no explicit nexus requirement regarding the amount of payment a municipality may charge a redeveloper to defray its costs associated with redevelopment.  The LRHL instead empowers a municipality to "negotiate and collect revenue from a redeveloper to defray the costs of the redevelopment entity" in order "to carry out and effectuate the purposes of [the LRHL] and the terms of the [municipality's] redevelopment plan."  N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(f).  The statute's plain terms permit a municipality to "negotiate" any payment amount from a redeveloper without requiring a causal connection between the payment and the redeveloper's proposed project, as long as the municipality demonstrates the payment will defray costs to the municipality associated generally with redevelopment.  The language authorizing a municipality to "negotiate and collect revenue from a redeveloper to defray the costs of the redevelopment entity" is plain, unambiguous, and markedly different from the language set forth in the MLUL payment provision.  Compare N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(f) with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-42.  
     The Court cautions, regardless of which statute applies, the need for transparency with respect to any municipality's negotiated payment from a redeveloper remains.  Transparency avoids the appearance that "'[a]pprovals would be granted or withheld depending upon the board members' arbitrary sense of how much an applicant should pay.'"  See Pond Run Watershed Ass'n v. Twp. of Hamilton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 397 N.J. Super. 335, 359 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Nunziato v. Plan. Bd. of Edgewater, 225 N.J. Super. 124, 134 (App. Div. 1988)).  It notes transparency is critically important when a municipality provides a benefit to a redeveloper, so the public is assured the negotiations proceeded at arms-length.  Transparency is fundamental to maintain public trust, to ensure accountability, and to prevent the appearance of favoritism or impropriety in government decision-making.  See Jersey Pub. Co. v. N.J. Expressway Auth., 124 N.J. 478, 492 (1991) (emphasizing the necessity of transparency to uphold public trust and confidence in governmental processes).  The court concludes the City had been transparent in its negotiation of payment with 290 Ocean and its intended use of the funds.
     The court also concludes the Plan Amendment was a lawfully-enacted alteration to the Redevelopment Plan that did not amount to impermissible spot zoning, and Blackridge did not have designated developer status that would allow it to veto the Plan Amendment. Therefore, it affirms the decision of the trial court.
 

     In this appeal, we address the legal standards to be applied by a reviewing court concerning applications for termination or modification of permanent alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3) based on the retirement of an obligor when the judgment or order establishing the alimony obligation was entered prior to the 2014 amendment of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.  
     Based on the language in subsection (j)(3), after an obligor has shown they have reached a "good faith retirement age," a prima facie showing of changed circumstances may be established by an obligor satisfying the standards set out in the Court's seminal holding of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980).  A typical method of showing a prima facie changed circumstance is through proof of a decrease in an obligor's financial circumstances due to their retirement affecting their continuing ability to pay alimony at the level set forth in the current judgment or order.  Here, we hold under subsection (j)(3), that a prima facie change of circumstance can also be shown by an obligee's financial disclosure or other evidence in the record exhibiting:  (1) an obligee has adequately saved for retirement and no longer has a continuing need for alimony as set forth in the order or judgment to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage; or (2) an obligee had the ability to adequately save for retirement after the final judgment of divorce and, if they had done so, would no longer have a continuing need for alimony as set forth in the order or judgment to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.  
     Discovery and a hearing are necessary if genuine issues of material fact exist related to an obligee's ability to have adequately saved for retirement affecting their continuing need for alimony.  At a hearing, under subsection (j)(3) the obligor has the burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that a modification or termination of alimony is warranted based on the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3)(a to -h).
 

Plaintiffs, successful litigants in Open Public Records Act litigation against defendant school district, obtained an order of judgment awarding attorney's fees on August 28, 2020.  After the court affirmed the August 28, 2020 order of judgment, the parties failed to negotiate payment of the attorney's fees. Plaintiffs then sought a judgment for the attorney's fees in the Civil Judgment and Order Docket, which was entered on July 20, 2022.  When plaintiffs sought to enforce the July 20, 2022 judgment against defendants, including payment for post-judgment interest, the trial court ordered post-judgment interest be calculated from July 20, 2022 to August 29, 2022, the date of its order.  Plaintiffs appealed. 

On appeal, the court held that post-judgment interest accrues from the date of a trial court's entry of an order of judgment awarding attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 4:47, rather than the date the judgment was docketed.  Although the accrual date may be modified by the trial court in the interests of equity, there was no factual predicate proffered by defendants to support modification of the post-judgment interest accrual date in the record.  Accordingly, the court reversed the August 29, 2022 order as to the accrual date of post-judgment interest and remanded to the trial court for entry of an order awarding post-judgment interest accruing from August 28, 2020. 
 

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff S.V. alleges that defendants prematurely discharged her sister ("J.V.") from their care after J.V. was treated for seventeen days on a voluntary admission basis for psychiatric care at defendants' facility.  The day after her psychiatric discharge, J.V. crashed her car into a utility pole, injuring plaintiff who was a passenger in the vehicle.

Plaintiff's medical expert contends defendants breached their professional standards of care by releasing J.V. prematurely while her medications were still being adjusted and her condition allegedly was not yet sufficiently stabilized.  This "premature release" theory is at the core of plaintiff's claim of negligence.  Notably, plaintiff did not argue below that defendants owed her a duty to warn her that J.V. was too unstable to drive a car, or of any other dangers relating to J.V.'s post-discharge condition. 

The Law Division judge denied defendants' motions for summary judgment.  Among other things, the judge rejected defendants' argument that they owed no legal duty to plaintiff in the circumstances presented.  This court granted leave to appeal, limited to the discrete issue of whether defendants owed a duty to plaintiff with respect to her claims.

The court reverses the summary judgment ruling, applying the four-factor criteria for a legal duty under Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 439 (1993).  Under the circumstances presented, defendants could not have reasonably foreseen that J.V., shortly after her discharge, would cause a motor vehicle crash that would injure plaintiff.  In addition, plaintiff's theory of liability—alleging that J.V., a voluntary mental health patient, should not have been discharged—clashes with the terms of our civil commitment laws.

The court holds that N.J.S.A. 19:13-8, which bars candidates for public office from being nominated by a political party, by way of direct petition, when they have already accepted the primary or general election nomination of another political party for the same office, does not violate the New Jersey Constitution.  The court, therefore, affirms the decisions by the New Jersey Secretary of State to reject the Moderate Party's request to list Tom Malinowski as its nominee on the November 2022 general election ballot for the United States House of Representatives, 7th Congressional District because Malinowski had already sought and accepted the Democratic Party's primary nomination for that office.

LOCAL PROPERTY TAXATION – REAL PROPERTY – PERSONAL PROPERTY - INTENTION OF PERMANENT AFFIXATION – LEGISLATION, INTERPRETATION – BUSINESS RETENTION ACT – CHAPTER 117
Tax Court:  Exelon Generation Company, LLC, C-O Schwer/Oyster Creek Environmental Protect v. Township of Lacey; Docket Nos. 002147-2018, 004238-2019, 007533-2020, 006775-2021, 005359-2022, 003409-2023, 004088-2024, opinion by Cimino, J.T.C., decided February 25, 2025.  For plaintiff – Farhan Ali (McCarter & English LLP; Frank E. Ferruggia and Farhan Ali, on the Brief); for defendant – Andrea E. Wyatt, (Rothstein, Mandell, Strohm, Halm & Cipriani, P.A.).

Held:  Taxpayers challenge whether storage casks which house highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel are subject to taxation as real property.  Taxpayers must store the spent fuel in the casks to protect the public and the environment from exposure to harmful radiation emitted from the spent fuel. To be taxable as real property, the storage casks must be affixed permanently.  
Taxpayers assert the spent fuel and storage casks are on-site temporarily until a disposal facility opens to accept the spent fuel from not only this site, but also other sites across the nation.  
The Township asserts the spent fuel and storage casks are on-site permanently.  By law, there is nowhere to move the spent fuel.  Though there have been plans over the course of decades for various disposal facilities, the spent fuel has continued to accumulate at the site since the 1970s.  
The court determines the storage casks are taxable since the Taxpayers cannot transfer the spent fuel to another site.

(Judges Joseph M. Andresini and Michael Gilmore did not participate in the consideration of publication of this matter.)

(30 pages)
 

In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff sued the attorneys who represented him in connection with a failed residential construction project alleging damages in excess of $4,000,000.  He contends his prior counsel negligently negotiated the construction contract and incorrectly advised him he could cancel the contract, resulting in a substantial arbitration award in favor of the architect who designed the project, and unpaid counsel fees owed to subsequent counsel.  
 

After filing this action, plaintiff entered a security agreement with the architect in which he assigned to the architect a portion of his anticipated recovery in this action, after first paying his litigation costs and attorneys' fees, to satisfy the arbitration award.  Plaintiff also executed an acknowledgement of attorney charging lien in which he acknowledged a lien on his recovery in this action in favor of subsequent counsel in exchange for their agreement to forebear from collection efforts until resolution of this action.
 

During jury selection, defendants moved to dismiss arguing plaintiff lacked standing because he impermissibly assigned his tort claim to third parties prior to judgment.  The trial court agreed, finding plaintiff "is merely seeking a judgment that is to be paid directly to third parties" and would "receive the benefit of the judgment in name only."  The trial court recognized "[t]he language of the agreements at issue does not indicate an assignment of any claims" but found the assignment of future proceeds violates the rule against assignment of tort claims pre-judgment.
 

The court reversed, concluding plaintiff has standing and did not assign his legal malpractice claim to third parties.  Plaintiff has standing because he retains the right to recover a significant portion of any damages award.  He will recover his legal costs and attorneys' fees before any amounts are paid to his architect and prior counsel and will retain any excess award.  The court also concluded the assignment of the potential recovery in a tort action does not violate the rule against pre-judgment assignment of tort claims if the injured person prosecutes the action in their own name and has standing to do so.  
 

    Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, defendant Jorge L. Gomez entered a guilty plea to second-degree possession of a firearm during the commission of a controlled dangerous substance ("CDS") offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a).  He was sentenced to five years in prison with a minimum forty-two months of parole ineligibility pursuant to the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c).  
    Defendant contended that the search warrant application did not allege criminal conduct, and in the absence of allegations of the specific quantity of CDS, law enforcement needed to allege that defendant had been warned for a first offense of distributing marijuana before the search warrant could be issued.
    The court reviewed the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act ("CREAMMA"), codified in relevant part at N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56; and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 to -10, and concluded the legislature did not intend to alter how police conduct investigations of those illegally distributing marijuana or alter the probable cause requirement for obtaining search warrants.  As a result, the court affirmed denial of defendant's suppression motion and affirmed his conviction.