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

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Emotional Support Animals in Condominiums

Players Place II Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. K.P., 256 N.J. 472 (2024). This case came to the Supreme Court as of right, due to a dissent in the Appellate Division...

Two New Criminal Cases for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new cases. Both are criminal matters. The first new matter actually comprises two appeals, State v. Nieves and State...

"The Unique Facts of This Case" Lead the Supreme Court to Hold That the Defense Was Properly Required to Produce a Certain Affidavit in Reciprocal Discovery

State v. Knight, 257 N.J. 248 (2024). In this opinion by Justice Pierre-Louis today, a unanimous Supreme Court twice stated that the facts of this case were "unique." That is...

Three Published Appellate Division Decisions Last Week

All was quiet on the Supreme Court front last week. But the Appellate Division issued three published opinions. Here are summaries. Sackman Enterprises, Inc. v. Mayor & Council of Borough...

Two Statutory Interpretation Decisions: One Involving Discipline of a Tenured Teacher and the Other About Unemployment Tax Payments for Court Reporters

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Sanjuan v. School District of West New York, 256 N.J. 369 (2024). There, plaintiff, a long-serving teacher who was also an assistant principal and tenured...

To Start the Week, A Catch-Up Post

While the Supreme Court has been quiet since it handed down this decision, the Appellate Division has issued six published opinions during the recent period. Here are summaries of those...

Three New Supreme Court Grants of Certification

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it has granted certification in three new matters. One of them is a taxation appeal, a type of matter that does not frequently appear...

The Civil Practice Committee Recommends One Appellate Rule Change

The Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee has issued its 2024 report, which addresses recommended changes to Court Rules as well as Rule change proposals not recommended. The report is available...

The Supreme Court Revises the Character and Fitness Questionnaire for the Committee on Character As Regards Restraining Orders and Title IX Actions

Since the Supreme Court has responsibility for the Committee on Character, and given my own service on and subsequent practice before that Committee, this blog has discussed issues related to...

Two Megan's Law Cases for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certification in two new cases, both involving Megan's Law. The cases, In the Matter of J.A. and In the Matter of...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146…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....