NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

No Nursing Home Act Violation, and Therefore No Consumer Fraud Act or TCCWNA Violation Either

Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99 (2014). This comprehensive opinion by Justice Patterson for a unanimous Court ultimately boils down to this: because plaintiff, a nursing home, did not violate the...

The Supreme Court Stays the Appellate Division's COAH Mandate

As discussed here, on March 7, the Appellate Division directed the Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH") to meet on an expedited basis and adopt third round rules regarding municipal shares of...

An Extraordinary Smackdown for COAH

Under Rule 2:8-1(b), motions in the Appellate Division are not normally argued orally. On March 5, however, an Appellate Division panel (Judges Fuentes, Simonelli, and Haas) heard oral argument, at...

A Public Access Anniversary

On March 7, 2007, the Supreme Court decided Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007). In a unanimous opinion by Justice Zazzali, the Court issued a ringing pronouncement...

Even in Egregious Circumstances, Sanctions Cannot be Imposed in Contravention of a Statute

Law v. Siegel, ___ U.S. ___ (2014). Outrageous behavior of a litigant deserves to be punished. That is why provisions such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and a...

The "Colonel" May be Going to the Supreme Court

Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., 434 N.J. Super. 558 (App. Div. 2014). In Arroyo v. Durling Realty, LLC, 443 N.J. Super. 238 (App. Div. 2013), discussed here, Judge Sabatino discussed the "mode of...

Granting a Handwritten, Pro Se Petition, the U.S. Supreme Court Will Review Prison Regulation of Inmate Beards

The landmark right to counsel case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), famously involved a prisoner's handwritten petition for certiorari that was granted and went on to change the legal...

An Unpublished Opinion Saves the Day for an Insurance Company

Badiali v. New Jersey Manufacturer's Insurance Group, 220 N.J. 544 (2015). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represents New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company in certain litigation, but the firm...

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of Washing Machine Class Actions

For many months, the class action defendants' lobby has highlighted two Circuit Court opinions as the latest poster boys in a campaign whose ultimate goal is to abolish class actions....

Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee Report Recommends Changes to the Appellate Rules

The 2014 Report of the Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee has been issued. The Committee has recommended changes to certain appellate rules. Other changes proposed to the Committee were not recommended. The...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108109110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146…Last

A Municipal Court Administrator is Employed by the Township, Not the Administrative Office of the Courts

Palmisano v. State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The opening paragraph of Judge Marczyk's opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulates what the appeal was about and what the result was. "Plaintiff Lindsay Palmisano appeals from the trial court's April 1, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice against defendant State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and Municipal Division (AOC) pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the AOC, thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we conclude plaintiff was employed by Vernon Township (Township), not the AOC, and, therefore, we affirm."...

Supreme Court to Take Up Two Published Appellate Division Opinions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new appeals. One is before the Court on leave to appeal. The Court granted certification in the other matter....

South Seaside Park Can Detach Itself From Berkeley Township

Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). South Seaside Park is a small (490 year-round residents) barrier island community that has been annexed to the Township of Berkeley ("the Township"). South Seaside Park sought to deannex itself from the Township and to be annexed instead to the Borough of Seaside Park. South Seaside Park followed a statutory petitioning procedure in doing so. The Township refused consent. South Seaside Park went to court and won a ruling from the Law Division that rejected the Township's refusal. The Appellate Division affirmed. Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, the Supreme Court affirmed as well....

Megan's Law "Not Likely to Pose a Threat to the Safety of Others" Extends to Non-Sexual as Well as Sexual Re-Offenses

In re Registrant S.O., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This appeal presented a pure legal issue relating to the "public safety prongs" contained in the termination provisions of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), and the Community Supervision for Life statute ("CSL"), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c). Judge Vanek crystallized that "novel" issue as "whether, on a registrant's application to terminate Megan's Law and CSL obligations, the phrase ‘not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others' should be broadly interpreted with the trial court considering threats to safety from subsequent non-sexual and sexual offenses or whether the inquiry should be limited to the threat of sexual re-offense only." The panel held that the broader view was the correct one....