On Tuesday, April 1, judges of Part E of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Bonfiglio v. Borough of Sea Bright. That case addresses whether a 2017 noise ordinance adopted by the Borough was void as preempted by a prior ordinance of the Monmouth County Regional Health Commission ("MCRHC")....

State v. Amang, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This opinion, issued today, was another magnum opus (63 pages) by Judge Susswein in a criminal case. As stated in the first sentence of the decision, this was an appeal from defendant's "jury trial convictions for aggravated assault, simple assault, endangering the welfare of a child, possession of an assault firearm, and possession of large capacity ammunition magazines. Defendant committed the assault and endangering crimes against his daughters." The bottom line result was an affirmance of the convictions for most of the crimes, but a reversal and remand on the simple assault charges....

Mauer v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Plaintiff, a State of New Jersey employee, filed lawsuits against the State, several State agencies, and certain employees of those agencies under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq. The two cases were consolidated. The law firm of Brown & Connery ("B&C") appeared for defendants....

State v. Jones, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Recovery Court, formerly known as Drug Court, is a diversionary program involving intensive supervision and other techniques intended to lead to an ultimate expungement of criminal convictions in many cases. Judge Natali's opinion for the Appellate Division in this case today addressed one aspect of the criteria for admission to Recovery Court....

It's time to catch up with the courts again. Last week, the Supreme Court issued two opinions, while the Appellate Division published one decision. Here are summaries:...

The Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it has granted leave to appeal in two matters. The first of those cases is State v. Miles. The question presented in that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Was defendant entitled to discovery related to the State's use of facial recognition technology, see State v. Arteaga, 476 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2023)? Relying on Arteaga, where the Appellate Division had approved such discovery, a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished order, affirmed the Law Division's similar ruling here....

Blackridge Realty, Inc. v. The City of Long Branch, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Pursuant to a written developer's agreement, plaintiff ("Blackridge") was a designated redeveloper under the City of Long Branch's Oceanfront-Broadway Redevelopment Plan. That plan was adopted pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law ("LRHL"), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. Blackridge successfully completed its redevelopment project....

Voynick v. Voynick, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The start of Judge Bergman's opinion in this case today offered a good summary of the issues in this Family Part appeal. "In this appeal, we address the legal standards to be applied by a reviewing court concerning applications for termination or modification of permanent alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3) based on the retirement of an obligor when the judgment or order establishing the alimony obligation was entered prior to the 2014 amendment of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23."...

C.E. v. Elzabeth Public School District, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This opinion by Judge Smith today was the second ruling by the Appellate Division in this case. The previous decision was summarized here....

In re Tom Malinowski Petition for Nomination for General Election, November 8, 2022, for United States House of Representatives New Jersey Congressional District 7, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This case was an "Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week," as discussed here. Today, in an opinion by Judge Gilson, the Appellate Division held that New Jersey's "anti-fusion" statute, N.J.S.A. 19:13-8, which prohibits a candidate for public office from appearing on a ballot on more than one party line, does not violate the New Jersey Constitution. This ruling affirms a decision by the Secretary of State that rejected, citing that same statute, a request by the Moderate Party to Tom Malinowski as its nominee on the November 2022 general election ballot for the United States House of Representatives, 7th Congressional District because Malinowski was already on the ballot as the nominee of the Democratic Party....