NJ Appellate Law Blog

The Appellate Division Declines to Rewrite N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b)

Castano v. Augustine, 475 N.J. Super. 71 (App. Div. 2023). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b), enacted as part of the reform of New Jersey's automobile insurance system, states: "Any person who is convicted...

The Last Half of February in the Appellate Division

This follows up on yesterday's post about the second half of February in the Supreme Court. Here are summaries of some of the Appellate Division's published opinions issued in the...

"Ministerial Exception" That Bars Employment Discrimination Claims by Ministers Employed by Religious Institutions Also Covers Other Claims Related to the Institution's Employment Decision

Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of New Jersey, 474 N.J. Super. 561 (App. Div. 2023). As Judge Mitterhoff explained in her opinion for the Appellate Division today, the Free Exercise and...

Smith & Wesson Fails to Block a Subpoena Issued by the Attorney General Under the Consumer Fraud Act

Platkin v. Smith & Wesson Sales Co., Inc., 474 N.J. Super. 476 (App. Div. 2023). In 2020, the Attorney General's office issued to Smith & Wesson an administrative action subpoena...

Witness Tampering Statute is Neither Unconstitutionally Overbroad Nor Vague

State v. Hill, 474 N.J. Super. 366 (App. Div. 2023). Defendant was convicted of carjacking and witness tampering. After the female victim of the carjacking identified defendant to police from...

A Court, Not the Motor Vehicle Commission, Must Address an Application for Sentencing Credit Related to Installation of an Ignition Interlock Device

State v. Coviello, 252 N.J. 539 (2023). Judge Sabatino's unanimous opinion in this case began by posing the "narrow jurisdictional question" before the Court as "When a portion of a...

Two Opinions Today That Emphasize the Need for "Balancing the Interests"

The "balancing of interests" often finds its way into judicial opinions. That is especially so in difficult cases. Two opinions issued today, one by the Supreme Court and one by...

Admitted Violation of Defendant's Miranda Rights, Which is Presumed to be Harmful Error, Was Not Harmless in This Case

State v. Wade, 252 N.J. 209 (2022). As Justice Solomon said in his unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court today in this murder case, New Jersey courts "rarely find an...

A Licensed Practical Nurse is Not a "Licensed Person" Under the Affidavit of Merit Statute

Gilligan v. Junod, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). As Judge Gilson stated in his opinion for the Appellate Division today, this case "present[ed] a question of first impression:...

No Disqualifying Conflict of Interest by Insurance Company-Assigned Counsel in a Workers' Compensation Case

Alam v. Ameribuilt Contractors, 474 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2022). This was a workers' compensation appeal in which the Law Division had disqualified insurance company-assigned counsel for respondent-appellant Ameribuilt...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415 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…Last

The Second and Third Published Appellate Division Decisions of the Current Term

As September turned to October, the Appellate Division issued its second and third published opinions of the Term. One was a decision by Judge Vinci in a civil appeal. The other ruling, in a criminal appeal, was authored by Judge Perez Friscia....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Did it Violate a Class Action Settlement That Barred Mass Opt-Outs to Allow Opt-Outs From a Marketing Campaign That Solicited Opt-outs?

On Tuesday, September 30, judges on Part G of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Esposito v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The case follows from a $100 million nationwide class action settlement that had required class members who decided to exclude themselves from the settlement and potentially pursue their own litigation against Verizon to opt out individually, and barred mass opt-outs. However, Murphy Advocates, LLC, a Colorado law firm conducted a marketing campaign to create a mass opt-out that attracted about 11,000 class members who responded to Murphy that they wished to opt out....

A Pair of New Criminal Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. Both are criminal appeals. One is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division, while the other is from an unpublished per curiam decision by a three-judge panel....

Can a Plaintiff in a Civil Case Refuse to Testify at Trial After Being Served With a Defense Notice in Lieu of Subpoena and Having Been Ordered to Testify by the Trial Judge? An Anniversary

On this date in 2005, the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005). The case involved a plaintiff who was shot in an apartment building in Atlantic City, which left him paralyzed. He brought a negligence suit against a number of defendants, including Atlantic City Housing & Urban Renewal Associates ("ACHURA"), the owner of the apartment building....