The Appellate Division issued four published opinions this week. Here are summaries:...
Rappaport v. Pasternak, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Justice Patterson's opinion for a unanimous Court today arose out of the arbitration of a dispute among members of limited liability companies. After the arbitrator made his award, the Chancery Division confirmed that award. But the Appellate Division, which viewed the record as showing that the arbitrator had improperly ruled on an issue not presented by the parties, modified the award. On further review, the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Chancery Division's confirmation of the award....
Chief Justice Rabner announced today that, effective today, Judge Michael Blee has been assigned to the Appellate Division and designated as Acting Administrative Director of the Courts. The Order doing so is available here....
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....
The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in State v. Arrington. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Can a criminal defendant advance an insanity defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 without expert testimony?"...
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....
On this date in 1992, the Supreme Court decided Sica v. Wall Township Board of Adjustment, 127 N.J. 152 (1992). [Disclosure: I argued this case for the successful plaintiff]. Justice Pollock's opinion for a unanimous Court addressed a question that arose out of Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987). There, the Court held that a use variance applicant must satisfy an enhanced standard of proof that the variance is not inconsistent with the intent of the master plan and zoning ordinances. The question in Sica was whether that enhanced standard applied to inherently beneficial uses. The Court said that it did not....
Musker v. Suuchi, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2025). The question presented in this appeal, as stated by Justice Fasciale in his unanimous opinion, was "whether ‘commissions' are considered ‘wages' under the Wage Payment Law (WPL), N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.15, and are therefore subject to the WPL's protections." As summarized here, both the Law Division and the Appellate Division granted a defense motion for summary judgment, holding that "commissions" were not "wages" but were "supplementary incentives" not covered by the WPL....