Posted Date | Name of Case (Docket Number) | Type |
---|---|---|
Dec. 11, 2023 |
ROSETTA HARGETT, ETC. VS. HAMILTON PARK OPCO LLC, ET AL. (L-1587-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-2036-22)
In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff, as administratrix ad prosequendum for the estate of decedent, sued a nursing facility and a hospital alleging negligent care that resulted in pressure wounds and, ultimately, decedent's physical decline and death. Plaintiff asserted direct claims of administrative negligence against both facilities as well as claims based on vicarious liability for nursing malpractice. Plaintiff served a single affidavit of merit ("AOM") executed by a registered nurse who opined that the nursing home, the hospital, and members of their nursing and nursing administrative staff deviated from the applicable standards of care. The AOM did not distinguish between the nursing staffs at the separate facilities and did not name any individual nurses. The trial court conducted two Ferreira conferences. Defendants objected to the AOM because the nurse who executed it was not qualified to render an opinion as to direct administrative negligence claims against the facilities and the AOM did not identify any individual nurses for whom the facilities could be held vicariously liable. Plaintiff did not seek to conduct any pre-AOM discovery and declined the opportunity to serve a supplemental AOM. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to serve an appropriate AOM, and the trial court dismissed the complaint on that basis. Plaintiff subsequently settled her claims against the hospital. On appeal, plaintiff abandoned her direct administrative negligence claim against the nursing home and proceeded based only on vicarious liability. The court affirmed, concluding the AOM was not sufficient to support plaintiff's vicarious liability claim because it indiscriminately combined the nursing staffs of two separate facilities and did not identify any individual nurses. The court also concluded plaintiff's claim was in essence an administrative negligence claim because it was based on the nursing home's systemic failure to provide adequate care rather than a claim based on the negligence of any individual nurses. |
Appellate |
Dec. 7, 2023 |
JA/GG DOE 70 VS. DIOCESE OF METUCHEN, ET AL. (L-5430-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
(A-1919-22)
In this appeal, the court considers whether a non-resident, religious organization is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey related to allegations of sexual abuse of a child in New Jersey by a priest of the religious organization. Plaintiff alleges that Father John Butler, a Catholic priest, sexually abused him from approximately 1995 to 1998, when plaintiff was approximately nine to twelve years old. At that time, Butler was serving as a priest in New Jersey, and the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (Richmond) had encouraged and allowed Butler to go to New Jersey to serve as a priest, knowing that Butler had sexual propensities towards children. Richmond appeals from an order finding that it was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in New Jersey related to Butler's actions in New Jersey. Because the facts establish that Richmond purposefully availed itself of the benefits of allowing Butler to go to New Jersey to serve as a priest, the court holds that there is specific personal jurisdiction over Richmond and affirms. |
Appellate |
Dec. 7, 2023 |
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE Y. MARTINEZ-MEJIA (20-01-0028, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
(A-3472-21)
The main issue in this criminal appeal is whether the Luring, Enticing Child by Various Means statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6(a), requires the State to prove a defendant lured or enticed a "child," in this case an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fourteen-year-old girl, into traveling or accompanying the defendant to some location other than the victim's own home. The court rejects defendant's contention that because he enticed the "child" to meet him alone, and defendant traveled to the "child's" home, a judgment of acquittal should have been entered. By its plain language, the statute forbids an adult from "luring or enticing a child to meet or appear at any other place." The child's home can be the "other place." Here, that location is a place "other" than where the defendant was when he communicated with the child. There is no reason to construe the expansive language of "any other place" as somehow containing an unwritten exception for places where the child is already located. When the prohibited meeting was arranged, the course of action into which the child was lured was staying alone, isolated, and vulnerable. Applying these principles, the court affirms the conviction and sentence for second-degree luring, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6 (a); second-degree attempted sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(3) and 2C:14-2(c)(4); third-degree attempted endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C-24-4(a)(1); 2C:5-1(a)(1) and (a)(3); and third-degree attempted promoting obscene material to a minor, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3(b)(1), 2C:5-1(a)(1) and (a)(3). The unpublished portion of this opinion rejects unrelated arguments raised by defendant alleging evidentiary errors. |
Appellate |
Dec. 7, 2023 |
D.T. VS. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. (L-1327-20, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
(A-0372-22)
In this appeal, the court considers whether a non-resident, religious organization is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey related to allegations of sexual abuse of a child in New Jersey by a priest of the religious organization. Plaintiff D.T. alleges that Michael McCarthy, a former Catholic priest, sexually abused him in New Jersey in 1971. At that time, plaintiff was fourteen years old, and McCarthy was serving as a priest and teacher in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the Archdiocese). Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his claims against the Archdiocese for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because there are no facts establishing that the Archdiocese purposefully availed itself of any benefits in or from New Jersey related to McCarthy's alleged abuse of plaintiff, the court affirms. |
Appellate |
Dec. 5, 2023 |
MARY HORNE, ET AL. VS. JASI MIKAE EDWARDS, ET AL. (L-0402-23, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-2619-22)
This matter arises from a petition to invalidate the candidacies of two individuals elected to the Trenton City Council. Plaintiffs alleged Yazminelly Gonzalez did not satisfy the requirement that she reside in Trenton for one year prior to the election. They also alleged defendant Jasi Mikae Edwards was ineligible for office because she had a criminal history in Pennsylvania. The court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing both challenges. The court first addressed plaintiffs' failure to establish standing under N.J.S.A. 19:29-2, which provides a petition challenging an election must be signed by at least fifteen voters in the county or, alternatively, by a candidate defeated in the election. Plaintiffs' petition had at most three signatures. Moreover, a subsequent attempt to add a defeated candidate to the petition was untimely. Despite plaintiffs' failure to establish standing, the court addressed the substantive issue of whether Gonzalez was eligible to run for Council. The court ultimately affirmed the trial judge's credibility findings that Gonzalez satisfied the residency requirements set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:9-1.13, in that she resided in Trenton for more than a year prior to her election. As to Edwards, the court observed plaintiffs conflated the forfeiture and eligibilty provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2. The court noted the distinction between criminal offenses requiring the forfeiture of office pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(a) and offenses rendering a candidate ineligible from holding office under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(d). N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(a) authorizes forfeiture of public office when a person is convicted while "holding" public office if the offense: involves dishonesty, is a crime of at least the third degree, or involves or touches upon the candidate's public office. Importantly, Edwards was not convicted—while holding public office—of any predicate offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(a). Instead, her conviction occurred in 2019, prior to her holding office. N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(a) does not bar a person from seeking public office in the future based on a past conviction. The court noted an individual may run for public office so long as the candidate was not convicted of an offense "involving or touching on his public office." N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(d). Plaintiffs did not allege Edwards' prior conviction touched on her public office. Although the court does not deem a shoplifting offense to be trivial, Edwards' conviction for shoplifting occurred prior to her election to Council, and she disclosed it when she became a candidate. Therefore, the court determined Edwards' conviction did not implicate N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(d). Lastly, the court further concluded that even if this matter involved a forfeiture claim, plaintiffs lacked standing under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(b)(2), because only the county prosecutor or the Attorney General have standing to challenge the holder of public office "when the forfeiture is based upon a conviction of an offense under the laws of another state or of the United States. . . ." |
Appellate |
Dec. 4, 2023 |
257-261 20TH AVENUE REALTY, LLC VS. ALESSANDRO ROBERTO, ET AL. (F-003349-21, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-3315-21)
In this tax sale foreclosure appeal, the court addressed whether the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), which declared a taxing authority's confiscation of a property owner's equity violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, bars a third-party tax sale certificate holder's foreclosure of a property owner's equity under the New Jersey Tax Sale Law (TSL), N.J.S.A. 54:5-1 to -137, and if barred, whether pipeline retroactivity is afforded. The court also addressed whether the motion judge's decision to vacate final judgment under Rule 4:50-1(f), based primarily on defendant having redemption funds and significant property equity, was an abuse of discretion. Defendant Alessandro Roberto[1] owned a mixed residential and commercial use property located in Paterson. In 2010 and 2016, defendant failed to pay his municipal sewer tax bills resulting in plaintiff's $606 purchase of three property tax sale certificates. Almost eleven years after the last tax sale certificate was purchased, plaintiff commenced a tax sale foreclosure. As the matter was uncontested, plaintiff obtained final judgment for $32,973.15. Defendant moved to vacate final judgment pursuant to Rules 4:50-1(e) and (f), arguing entitlement to equitable relief because he had redemption funding, would lose significant equity, and suffered COVID-19 related financial difficulties. The Chancery Division judge vacated final judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(f). Plaintiff 257-261 20th Avenue Realty, LLC appealed from the Chancery Division orders, which conditionally vacated final judgment and permitted redemption, vacated final judgment upon satisfaction of the conditions, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiff argued the judge erred in finding exceptional circumstances existed to vacate final judgment. Defendant argued the totality of facts weighed in favor of exceptional circumstances to vacate final judgment and the judge did not abuse his discretion. After the judge's decision and the submission of merits briefs on appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Tyler. The court affirmed the decision to vacate final judgment, based on the judge's detailed findings of exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:50-1(f), discerning no abuse of discretion. The court also concluded cause existed to vacate judgment as the application of Tyler to New Jersey's similar TSL framework established that the confiscation of a New Jersey property owner's equity, through a tax sale foreclosure, violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. As Tyler established a new principle of law, pipeline retroactivity is afforded.
[1] Defendant's first name was incorrectly pleaded as Alesandro. |
Appellate |
Nov. 30, 2023 |
ERNEST BOCK & SONS-DOBCO PENNSAUKEN JOINT VENTURE VS. TOWNSHIP OF PENNSAUKEN, ET AL. (L-1878-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-3684-22)
In this matter of first impression, the court considered whether a joint venture formed for the sole purpose of bidding on a public contract is required to be registered as a contractor under the Public Works Contractor Registration Act (PWCRA), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.48 to - 56.57, at the time of the bid submission. The court held that the PWCRA applies to a joint venture and requires registration at the time of bid submission to local governments. The court likewise concluded the lack of a PWCRA registration certificate by the joint venture renders the bid substantially non-compliant and non-conforming with the local governments' bid specifications. Lastly, the court held a local government's decision to require all bidders to comply explicitly with the PWCRA as set forth in the bid specification was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable because it was consistent with the local finance and public contract laws. Accordingly, the court affirms the rejection of the joint venture's bid and the award of the public contract to the lowest responsible bidder. |
Appellate |
Nov. 29, 2023 |
IN THE MATTER OF A.D., ETC. (P-000982-20, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)
(A-2563-21/A-2652-21)
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in its application of the law or abused its discretion in its denial of appellants' fee applications. In a guardianship matter filed by Adult Protective Services (APS), the trial court appointed appellants to serve as the counsel and the temporary guardian of the alleged incapacitated person (AIP), who had no assets and a limited income. After working together to obtain services for the AIP, appellants and APS agreed the AIP needed only a limited guardianship, and the trial court granted that relief. Appellants moved for an order requiring APS to pay their fees and costs, arguing they were entitled to fees pursuant to Rule 4:42-9(a)(3), which permits a trial court to award fees in a guardianship matter pursuant to Rule 4:86-4(e), which in turn authorizes a court to compensate appointed counsel and the guardian ad litem in a guardianship matter "out of the estate of the [AIP] or in such other manner as the court shall direct." The trial court denied the fee applications, finding courts do not have the statutory authority to require APS to pay the fees of court-appointed counsel and temporary guardians and that APS had not engaged in any misfeasance warranting fee-shifting. The court agreed, concluding the Adult Protective Services Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-406 to -425, did not give courts the authority to order APS to pay fees under these circumstances. |
Appellate |
Nov. 21, 2023 |
Henry Keim v. Above All Termite & Pest Control
(A-30-22 ; 087603)
Keim was “in the course of employment” under the “authorized vehicle rule” at the time of the accident because Above All authorized a vehicle for him to operate and his operation of that identified vehicle was for business expressly authorized by Above All. |
Supreme |
Nov. 20, 2023 |
State v. Amandeep K. Tiwana
(A-36-22 ; 087919)
Defendant was in custody at the hospital in light of the police presence around her bed area. But no interrogation or its functional equivalent occurred before her spontaneous and unsolicited admission. Miranda warnings were therefore not required, and defendant’s statement -- that she “only had two shots prior to the crash” -- is admissible at trial. |
Supreme |
Nov. 16, 2023 |
New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. D.C.A. and J.J.C.B.
(A-44-22 ; 087604)
Based on the plain language of the 2021 Amendment, the Court concurs with the trial court and Appellate Division that the Legislature did not intend to bar trial courts from considering evidence of the child’s relationship with the resource family when they address the fourth prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The trial court properly considered the relationships between the children and their resource families when it considered the fourth prong of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4), and its determination as to all four prongs of that test was grounded in substantial and credible evidence in the record. |
Supreme |
Nov. 16, 2023 |
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM J. SILVERS, III (19-07-0813, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-2353-21)
The main issue in this criminal appeal is whether the trial judge erred during jury selection in denying defense counsel's requests to remove for cause two potential jurors who are police officers. The officers are employed by police departments in different municipalities from where the alleged offenses occurred, investigated, and were prosecuted, but within the same county. The court rejects defendant's contention that because interaction with the county prosecutor's office is inherently a "necessary component of their jobs as police officers," active-duty police officers who work in the same county where the criminal charges arose must be stricken for cause from juries upon a defendant's request. Instead of applying a categorical bar, the court continues the tradition of State v. Reynolds, 124 N.J. 559, 565 (1991), in which the Supreme Court recognized the concerns about the potential bias of police-officer-jurors, but which also declined to endorse a strict policy to remove them for cause. The Court in Reynolds instructed judges "should be inclined to excuse a member of the law enforcement community" from the jury on a defendant's request, leaving it to the trial courts to perform an individualized assessment of each juror's ability to be fair and impartial. Ibid. Extending the nuanced approach of Reynolds, the Court holds that a per se finding of cause to strike a criminal juror in law enforcement should only apply to employees of the same police department or prosecutor's office that investigated or prosecuted the charged offense. To aid trial judges and counsel, the court presents non-exhaustive factors that should be considered in evaluating, on a juror-by-juror and case-by-case basis, whether there is cause to remove a juror employed in law enforcement. If, on the whole, those factors establish cause, the trial court "shall" remove the juror, as is required under the recently reinforced language of Rule 1:8-3(b). Applying these principles, the court affirms the trial judge's denial of defendant's request to strike for cause one of the two police officers, but finds error with respect to the other officer, based on the officers’ respective voir dire responses. However, the latter officer was never summoned to the jury box, so the error in failing to remove the juror for cause was harmless. The unpublished portion of this opinion rejects unrelated arguments raised by defendant alleging evidentiary and sentencing errors. |
Appellate |
Nov. 15, 2023 |
State v. Michael Olenowski
(A-56-18 ; 082253)
Daubert-based expert reliability determinations in criminal appeals will be reviewed de novo, while other expert admissibility issues are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. |
Supreme |
Nov. 15, 2023 |
C.P. VS. THE GOVERNING BODY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ET AL. (L-5508-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
(A-1779-22 )
On leave granted in this child sexual abuse case, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to defendants Watchtower Bible and Trust Society of New York, Inc. and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (defendants). Plaintiff C.P., now an adult, was sexually abused by her grandfather in the 1970's and 1980's. He was authorized to serve as an elder for defendants' congregations. Plaintiff alleges defendants owed her a "special duty" to protect her from her grandfather's sexual criminal acts because they knew he had engaged in sexual conduct with at least three minors, including herself, but did not discipline him and negligently retained him as an elder. In 1994, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her grandfather and other family members, which resulted in a sizeable jury award in her favor. Plaintiff did not name defendants in the 1994 lawsuit because the Charitable Immunity Act (CIA) as it existed at the time precluded actions against non-profit, educational, and religious institutions for willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct resulting in sexual abuse. In 1995, the CIA was amended to permit such causes of action. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a). In 2006, the CIA was again amended to provide an exception to immunity for negligence claims where the supervision, hiring, and retention of an employee, agent, or servant led to sexual abuse. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7.4. In 2021, plaintiff filed suit against defendants under the Child Victims Act (CVA), L. 2019, c. 120, which provided a two-year revival window for victims to file otherwise time-barred claims for sexual crimes committed against them while minors. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(b). The CVA also amended the CIA to allow retroactive liability against religious and other organizations. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 and N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(b). The court agreed with the trial court that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff's claims asserted in her 2021 complaint were not cognizable under the CIA in 1994. The court further found the trial court properly supported its decisions rejecting the applicability of the entire controversy doctrine and judicial estoppel. |
Appellate |
Nov. 14, 2023 |
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL D. JONES (P-000005-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-2944-21)
In this probate dispute, the court considered whether application of N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 conflicts with federal regulations governing ownership of United States Savings Bonds to warrant preemption by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution. Under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14, divorce automatically revokes a disposition of property in a governing instrument made by a divorced individual to his or her former spouse before the divorce. Defendant ex-wife filed a claim against her ex-husband's estate seeking payment of outstanding obligations under the parties' divorce settlement agreement (DSA) when her ex-husband died intestate prior to satisfying the obligations. The ex-husband's estate sought to offset payment of the DSA's outstanding obligations with payment defendant received as the pay-on-death (POD) beneficiary when she redeemed federal savings bonds owned by her ex-husband. Although her ex-husband had not changed or revoked the POD beneficiary designation on the bonds following the divorce as permitted under federal regulations and the DSA was silent as to the disposition of the bonds, the trial court applied the presumptive revocation provision of N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 to grant the estate partial summary judgment, allowing the redemption of the savings bonds to partially satisfy the DSA obligations. The court reversed, holding that because federal regulations govern the rights and obligations created by a beneficiary's bond ownership, absent evidence of fraud, breach of trust, or other wrongful conversion of property, the regulations take precedence and preempt the inconsistent provisions of N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14. The court held that by determining defendant's beneficiary designation was automatically revoked under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 by virtue of the divorce, the trial court misinterpreted the DSA and failed to give effect to defendant's federal ownership rights, "render[ing] the award of title meaningless." Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 669 (1962). |
Appellate |
Nov. 9, 2023 |
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF KINNELON, MORRIS COUNTY VS. KAREN D'AMICO (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION)
(A-2764-21)
The court considered the final agency decision of the Commissioner of Education granting the Board of Education of the Borough of Kinnelon's motion for summary decision, denying appellant's cross-motion for summary decision, and removing appellant from her position on the Board. The Commissioner ruled a ten-day letter filed by a parent of a child in need of special education services constituted a substantial conflict of interest sufficient to remove the parent from her duly elected position on the Board of Education. Our Supreme Court of New Jersey previously addressed circumstances wherein a due process claim that included a request for specific monetary relief was determined to be a substantial conflict between a board member and the board, requiring removal. Bd. of Educ. of City of Sea Isle City v. Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1, 22 (2008). The question the court considered here is whether the submission of a ten-day letter raises a similarly substantial conflict of interest. The court concluded, based on the record, it did not. |
Appellate |
Nov. 8, 2023 |
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION OF K.M.G. (XP-21-002190, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
(A-0363-22 )
In this appeal of first impression, the court must determine whether the "clean slate" statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, which permits an expungement of a New Jersey criminal record if ten years have passed "from the date of the person's most recent conviction," applies to a conviction from another state. (Emphasis added). The trial court entered an order expunging petitioner's New Jersey criminal record after determining her 2017 Virginia misdemeanor conviction did not preclude eligibility for expungement under the "clean slate" statute because an out-of-state conviction does not constitute a "most recent conviction." The State contends the trial court erred in its interpretation of the "clean slate" statute, arguing petitioner's Virginia conviction must be considered, and because it was entered within ten years of her petition for expungement, her petition should have been denied. The court reverses because the text of the "clean slate" statute and related expungement statutes do not support the trial court's interpretation to preclude consideration of an out-of-state conviction from the phrase "most recent conviction." Moreover, such interpretation defies common sense given the "clean slate" statute's purpose to expunge a criminal record of an applicant who has not violated the law within ten years of their last New Jersey conviction. Consequently, petitioner's Virginia offense presently disqualifies her from expungement of her New Jersey criminal record under the "clean slate" statute. |
Appellate |
Nov. 6, 2023 |
ANIMAL PROTECTION LEAGUE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. VS. NEW JERSEY FISH AND GAME COUNCIL, ET AL. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION)
(A-1019-22 )
New Jersey's black bear hunt has drawn considerable public and judicial scrutiny over the years. At issue on this appeal is the validity of the emergency rule that precipitated the December 2022 hunt. On November 15, 2022, the State authorized the adoption of a new Comprehensive Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Management Policy (CBBMP) and related amendments to the State Fish and Game Code (Game Code), N.J.A.C. 7:25-5.1 to -5.39, pursuant to its emergency rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, thereby permitting a two-week black bear hunt that was scheduled to commence three weeks later on December 5, 2022. The emergency rule was approved by respondents New Jersey Fish and Game Council (Council); Council Chairman Frank J. Virgilio; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); DEP Commissioner Shawn M. LaTourette; and Governor Philip D. Murphy. Following the November 30, 2022 emergent application of appellants Animal Protection League of New Jersey, Angela Metler, Doreen Frega, and others to move for a stay of the November 15, 2022 concurrent emergency rule and proposed 2022 CBBMP, the court temporarily stayed the hunt and considered appellants' application. On December 5, 2022, the court denied appellants' motion and lifted the stay; the Supreme Court denied appellants' ensuing emergent application for relief. The black bear hunt thus proceeded. Thereafter, the 2022 CBBMP and amendments to the Game Code rule were adopted pursuant to formal rulemaking. Noting the issues raised on appeal concern matters of public interest, the court considered the merits of appellants' contentions on a full record and concludes the State violated the emergency rulemaking requirements under section N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4(c) of the APA, both by failing to demonstrate enactment of the rule was necessary on fewer than thirty days' notice and the hunt was necessary to avert imminent peril. Accordingly, the court reverses the State's emergency rulemaking. |
Appellate |
Nov. 2, 2023 |
J.P. ELECTRIC, INC., ET AL. VS. LPMG CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. (L-0219-18, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-0918-22)
Prior to this non-jury trial, defendant served an offer of judgment, which plaintiff rejected. At the close of plaintiff’s case in chief, the trial judge granted defendant’s motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 4:37-2(b). Defendant then applied for counsel fees and costs pursuant to Rule 4:58-6, which the judge denied. The court holds that because a successful motion under Rule 4:37-2(b) results in the "dismissal of the action" and no verdict in the plaintiff's favor is rendered, the denial of fees and costs was manifestly correct. The policy reasons underlying the zero-recovery exceptions to Rule 4:58-3(c) would be undermined if such fee-shifting were permitted. |
Appellate |
Oct. 27, 2023 |
STEVEN BREITMAN VS. ATLANTIS YACHT CLUB (L-3219-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
(A-0557-22)
This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of N.J.S.A. 15A:2.1(d), a provision within the New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation Act, N.J.S.A. 15A:1-1 to 14-26. In relevant part, Section 2.1(d) states: No corporation organized under this act shall have or issue capital stock or shares. No dividend shall be paid and no part of the income or profit of a corporation organized under this act shall be distributed to its members . . . but a corporation may pay compensation in a reasonable amount to its members . . . for services rendered, may pay interest on loans or other credit advances by members . . . [and] may confer benefits on its members in conformity with its purposes . . . . [(emphasis added).] Plaintiff paid $7,500 to become a member of defendant Atlantis Yacht Club, a nonprofit organization formed under N.J.S.A. 15A-2.1. His payment was memorialized in a Certificate of Interest ("COI"). In 2015, plaintiff informed the Club he was withdrawing as a member. Pursuant to the Club's by-laws, upon his withdrawal plaintiff would be eligible to receive a repayment from the Club to "redeem" his COI at such time when a new member joined. By the time plaintiff withdrew in 2015, the Club had raised its membership fee to $25,000. Under the extant by-laws, the Club was authorized to pay plaintiff (subject to adjustments for any unpaid charges) the amount of the new member's fee, minus a $5,000 capital assessment, for a net sum of $20,000. When a new member eventually joined in 2020, the Club notified plaintiff that it would pay him the $20,000 redemption amount in installments over three years. The Club accordingly paid plaintiff a first installment in 2020 of $3,333.33, informing him that his second- and third-year annual payments in 2021 and 2022 would each be $8,333.33. Before the second-year installment to plaintiff was due in July 2021, the Club had what is described as a "compliance review" conducted by a law firm. The firm advised the Club that making such a payment to withdrawing members at a higher amount than their original membership fee would risk the Club’s nonprofit status. That advice prompted the Club to rescind its scheduled installment payments to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the Club to enforce its promise to pay him the additional installments. The Law Division judge ruled in plaintiff's favor. The Club now appeals. The novel legal question presented is whether the payment arrangement was, as the Club contends, an illegal contract because it would entail the "distribution" to a member of "income or profit of the corporation" disallowed for nonprofits under N.J.S.A. 15A:2–1(d). The court affirms the trial judge's decision. The funds a new member pays the Club for a COI is a form of collateral to secure against future sums the member may owe the Club. Any higher amount paid to the withdrawing member at the time of the COI’s redemption is not "income or profit of the corporation" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 15A:2-1(d). |
Appellate |