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

The Supreme Court Speaks About Evidence Rule 404(b)

State v. Carlucci, 217 N.J. 129 (2014). This is another guest post by Jeffrey A. Shooman, who was then my colleague in the Appellate Practice Group of Lite DePalma Greenberg,...

No Nursing Home Act Violation, and Therefore No Consumer Fraud Act or TCCWNA Violation Either

Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99 (2014). This comprehensive opinion by Justice Patterson for a unanimous Court ultimately boils down to this: because plaintiff, a nursing home, did not violate the...

An Extraordinary Smackdown for COAH

Under Rule 2:8-1(b), motions in the Appellate Division are not normally argued orally. On March 5, however, an Appellate Division panel (Judges Fuentes, Simonelli, and Haas) heard oral argument, at...

Even in Egregious Circumstances, Sanctions Cannot be Imposed in Contravention of a Statute

Law v. Siegel, ___ U.S. ___ (2014). Outrageous behavior of a litigant deserves to be punished. That is why provisions such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and a...

An Unpublished Opinion Saves the Day for an Insurance Company

Badiali v. New Jersey Manufacturer's Insurance Group, 220 N.J. 544 (2015). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represents New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company in certain litigation, but the firm...

Attorneys' Fees Under an Unaccepted Offer of Judgment

Feliciano v. Faldetta, 434 N.J. Super. 543 (App. Div. 2014). Rule 4:58-1 allows a plaintiff to make an offer of judgment. If the defendant does not accept the offer, and...

Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee Report Recommends Changes to the Appellate Rules

The 2014 Report of the Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee has been issued. The Committee has recommended changes to certain appellate rules. Other changes proposed to the Committee were not recommended. The...

"Robotic" Treatment of Grandparent Visitation Cases in Family Part is Improper

R.K. v. D.L., Jr., 434 N.J. Super. 113 (App. Div. 2014). At least since Printing Mart v. Sharp Electronics, 116 N.J. 739 (1989), it has been clear that motions to...

The Limitations of Mandamus

Caporusso v. New Jersey Dep't of Health & Senior Services, 434 N.J. Super. 88 (App. Div. 2014). The prerogative writ of mandamus is the centerpiece of this opinion by Judge...

Administrative Closure of Case Does Not Necessarily Trigger Time to Appeal

McGlynn v. State of New Jersey, 434 N.J. Super. 23 (App. Div. 2014). This was a negligence and wrongful death case. Suit was brought against various defendants, including Jersey Central Power...

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 272829 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41…Last

No Ethics Violation in Attorney Purchasing Another Attorney's Name as a Keyword for Internet Searches, the Supreme Court Says, With a Caveat

In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). [Disclosure: I represented an amicus curiae in this appeal]. As Justice Noriega said in his opinion for a 5-1 majority (Justice Pierre-Louis did not participate), this appeal "presents the narrow question of whether it is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for an attorney or law firm to purchase a competing attorney's or law firm's name as a keyword." The Court found it permissible, with a caveat. Justice Fasciale dissented....

Four Criminal Law Cases, and a Qui Tam Appeal, for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in five new appeals. One of them is before the Court on leave to appeal, while in the others the Court granted certification....

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....