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

Choice of Applicable Statutes of Limitation Under the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law

Pitcock v. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, 426 N.J. Super. 582 (App. Div. 2012). This case arose out of a dispute between defendant, a New York law firm with a Newark...

Supreme Court Grants Review of Perini Decision Involving Construction Statute of Repose

The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to review the decision of the Appellate Division in State v. Perini Corp., 425 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div. 2012), discussed here. As phrased...

Only the Supreme Court, Not a Lower Court, Can Recognize a New Cause of Action

Filgueiras v. Newark Public Schools, 426 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2012). This case arose out of the allegedly improper termination of a gym teacher by Newark Public Schools. [Disclosure: My firm,...

Like it or Not, A Trial Level Judge Must Obey the Mandate of an Appellate Court

United States v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2012). In this decision, issued today and discussed here on a different subject, the Third Circuit sternly reprimanded a District of New Jersey...

Homeowners Association Cannot Ban Political Signs in Unit Windows

Mazdabrook Commons Homewoners Ass'n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482 (2012). "The question in this appeal is whether a homeowners' association can prohibit residents from posting political signs in the windows of their...

Supreme Court Will Review State v. Morgan "Jury Homework" Case

In State v. Morgan, 423 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 2011), discussed here, the Appellate Division ruled that it was not improper to permit jurors to take their written jury...

An Important Anniversary in Matrimonial Law

On this date in 1980, a unanimous Supreme Court decided Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980). In an opinion by Justice Pashman, the Court addressed "the standards and procedures for...

Mass Tort Defendants May Retain as Experts Doctors Who Treated Patient-Plaintiffs, But Those Doctors Cannot be Involved in the Cases of Those Same Patient-Plaintiffs

In re Pelvic Mesh-Gynecare Litig., 426 N.J. Super. 167 (App. Div. 2012). In this mass tort matter involving medical devices that are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, the...

Electronic Filing is Coming! Electronic Filing is Coming! (In the Appellate Division)

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey have each had electronic filing for a number of years. Now, the...

Conflicting Dictionaries II

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 132 S.Ct. 1997 (2012). About seventeen months ago, the Appellate Division had a personal injury protection (PIP) case, Perez v. Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 417 N.J. Super....

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125126127 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....