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

The "Gray Area" of Sidewalk Liability

Grijalba v. Floro, 431 N.J. Super. 57 (App. Div. 2013). As Judge Fasciale's opinion in this case shows in detail, issues of whether and when a property owner is liable for injuries...

Estate of Desir v. Vertus Reversed: Defendant Owed No Duty of Care

Estate of Desir v. Vertus, 214 N.J. 303 (2013). In this case, which involved the application of premises liability and the rescue doctrine to a tragic shooting death, the Appellate Division reversed the Law...

The Rollout of Electronic Filing in the Appellate Division

The Supreme Court has issued a Notice to the Bar, available here, that reveals the schedule for the introduction of electronic filing in the Appellate Division. Criminal appeals and motions...

The Invited Error Doctrine

State v. A.R., 185 N.J. 256 (2013). This blog does not often report on criminal cases. But the attached decision, written by Judge Cuff for a unanimous Supreme Court, highlights the invited...

Another Anniversary of the Best Paragraph Ever From the Supreme Court of New Jersey

Two years ago today, I noted the eloquent words of Justice Pashman in the final paragraph of his opinion for the Court in New Jersey Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v....

More About Notice Under the Municipal Land Use Law

Northgate Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Hillsdale Planning Bd., 214 N.J. 120 (2013). Opponents of land use development applications sometimes contest the adequacy of the notice given by development applicants, as occurred in...

Recalling the Dawn of Modern Consumer Protection Law

On this date fifty three years ago, the Supreme Court decided Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358 (1960). In a unanimous opinion of over 50 pages, the longest...

Unnecessary Supersedeas Bond Legislation Redux

Yesterday, Senate Bill 2052 was proposed for introduction. The legislation would limit the amount of an appeal bond in civil actions to $50 million. This same legislation was proposed in 2012,...

Reading the Plain Language of the Patients First Act

Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463 (2013). Until the advent of the New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act, codified in part at N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41, "in medical-malpractice cases, physician experts...

An Important Administrative Law Appeal to the Supreme Court

Sometimes we all fall behind. On March 21, 2013, the Appellate Division decided In re N.J.A.C. 7:1B-1.1 et seq., 431 N.J. Super. 100 (App. Div. March 21, 2013). A coalition of environmental groups...

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116117118 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....