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

As June Ends, Three Opinions From the Supreme Court

Unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, which customarily (though apparently not this year) issues all its opinions for the term by June 30, the Supreme Court of New...

Rooming House Operators Have No Statutory or Common Law Duty to Conduct Background Checks on Prospective Occupants in Order to Protect Other Occupants

Estate of Campagna v. Pleasant Point Properties, LLC, 464 N.J. Super. 153 (App. Div. 2020). This opinion is a magnum opus by Judge Sabatino. But he well summarized the ruling...

Supreme Court's Message to Prosecutors: Opening Statement Promises of a Confession by Defendants Are at Your Own Risk

State v. Greene, 242 N.J. 530 (2020). Until today, the Supreme Court "has not had occasion to squarely address a prosecutor's opening statement that detailed evidence of a defendant's guilt...

Uniform Fiduciaries Law Does Not Create an Affirmative Right of Action Against a Bank

Lembo v. Marchese, 242 N.J. 477 (2020). Employees of plaintiff, a dentist, forged endorsements on checks payable to plaintiff's dental practice and deposited those checks into their own accounts at...

The Tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 450 (2020). The Torts class in the first year of law school deals with, among other things, the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. It is...

The Supreme Court Reaffirms 66 East Allendale Rule for Determining Highest and Best Use in Condemnation Cases

Township of Manalapan v. Gentile, 242 N.J. 295 (2020). Justice Solomon wrote this opinion, issued today, for a unanimous Court. The question was whether, in this condemnation case, the Law...

Retail Installment Sales Act Applies to Health Club Memberships

Sanchez v. Fitness Factory Edgewater, LLC, 242 N.J. 252 (2020). In Mellet v. Aquasid, LLC, 453 N.J. Super. 23 (App. Div. 2017), the Appellate Division ruled that the Retail Installment...

The Third Circuit Opines, for the First Time, About "Overview Testimony"

United States v. Lacerda, 958 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2020). This lengthy opinion by Judge Porter affirmed a jury verdict convicting several defendants of mail fraud and wire fraud. Defendants...

"Proliferate and Exceedingly Intimate" Text Messages Can Amount to a "Dating Relationship" That Supports Issuance of a Restraining Order

C.C. v. J.A.H., 463 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 2020). The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C;25-17 et seq., allows the issuance of a restraining order for the protection...

45 Years Since Lind v. Schmid

On this day in 1975, the Supreme Court decided Lind v. Schmid, 67 N.J. 255 (1975). It has been cited well over one hundred times and is still a leading...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151617 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…Last

The "Limited Attorney Exemption" of the Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act is Held Unconstitutional as Violative of the Separation of Powers and Void for Vagueness

Anchor Law Firm, PLLC v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 et seq. ("DACCA"), prohibits debt adjusters in New Jersey from operating for a profit. There is an exception for attorneys not "principally engaged" (a term not defined in the statute) in debt adjustment. That exception, adopted in a 1986 amendment, replaced a prior version of the DACCA that had exempted all attorneys from its scope....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Where a Party Files a Suit Alleged to Violate the UPEPA But Quickly Dismisses It, Can Defendants Then Get Counsel Fees Under the Statute?

On May 15, judges on Part C of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Satz v. Keshet Starr. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a defamation suit against defendants. Defendants filed an o order to show cause to dismiss the case and for attorneys' fees under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 et seq. ("UPEPA"). The UPEPA, enacted in 2023, sought to make it more difficult to use the legal system as a weapon to bully individuals into silence by filing what have been known as SLAPP ("strategic lawsuits against public participation") suits....

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....