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

Appellate Division Published Opinions During and After Its Recess

The final day of the Appellate Division's two-week recess was April 25. On that date, the Appellate Division issued a published opinion. Two more published opinions followed during the current week. Here are summaries of those opinions....

"Ethics in Appellate Practice" Seminar at the NJSBA Annual Meeting on May 15

I will be moderating a panel titled "Ethics in Appellate Practice" that will help kick off Day 2 of the New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting on May 15. The presentation will be from 8:45-10 AM. It will feature Judge Gummer of the Appellate Division and distinguished appellate practitioners with experience in and perspectives on ethics in the appellate context from both the plaintiffs' and the defendants' sides....

With the Appellate Division's Recess Over, The Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week is Another Waiver of Arbitration Case

On Tuesday, April 29, judges on Part F of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Newport Associates Development Co. v. Chubb Ins. Co. The appeal arises out of the denial by the Law Division of the motion of defendant AIG Specialty Insurance Company ("ASIC") to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claim for indemnity in connection with underlying litigation with Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Public Service Electric and Gas Company. The Law Division held that ASIC had waived its contractual right to demand arbitration....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Has the School Funding Reform Act Denied Lakewood Public School Students the Constitutionally-Required "Thorough and Efficient" Education?

On Tuesday, April 8, judges on Part D will hear oral argument in Alcantar v. Allen-McMillan, a case filed in 2014 in which the Appellate Division has ruled before, 475 N.J. Super. 56 (App. Div. 2023). This appeal follows on the Appellate Division's prior ruling, unappealed by the State...

The Appellate Division This Week

The Appellate Division issued four published opinions this week. Here are summaries:...

"Consistent With Prior Practice," Judge Blee is Assigned to the Appellate Division and Designated as Acting Administrative Director of the Courts

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....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Is the Borough of Sea Bright's Noise Nuisances Ordinance Preempted by a Regional Health Commission's Existing Ordinance?

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")....

A Monumental Opinion by Judge Susswein in a Case Involving Charges of Aggravated Assault Against Defendant's Daughters, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and Weapons Charges

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....

Indictment of Attorney for State of New Jersey Defendants in an Unrelated Civil Case Did Not Disqualify His Firm From Representing State Defendants There

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....

Standards for Admission to Recovery Court

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....

1 234…Last

The Supreme Court Clarifies New Jersey's Automobile Exception to the Requirement of a Search Warrant

State v. Fenimore, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions protect the people against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and prohibit the issuance of search warrants without "probable cause." Both federal and New Jersey law, however, recognize an "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. But New Jersey's automobile exception is narrower than the federal exception, as the Supreme Court stated in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015). Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appellate Division in this case had interpreted Witt too broadly in reversing a Law Division decision to exclude evidence from a warrantless search. The Supreme Court reversed and excluded the evidence....

"Liberal Standards" for Standing "Are Not Equivalent to No Standards At All," the Supreme Court Says

New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As Justice Pierre-Louis observed in her opinion for a unanimous Court in this case today, New Jersey state courts have long "take[n] a more liberal approach to standing than federal law." But in this appeal, the statute sued upon, the Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. ("FPA"), stated that only a "franchisee" could sue its franchisor. Because plaintiff here ("NJCAR") was not a franchisee but an association of franchisees, NJCAR lacked standing to bring a FPA case....

Compassionate Release Act Does Not Require Physical Examination of Inmates Seeking Relief, But Denial of Relief in This Case Was Arbitrary and Capricious

M.R. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Plaintiff appealed the denial of his petition for release under the Compassionate Release Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51 ("CRA"). He argued that he had not been physically examined by a physician, and that the statute required a physical examination. The Appellate Division determined that the statute did not require a physical examination and upheld the denial of compassionate release. Today, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Hoffman, the Supreme Court agreed that no physical examination was required, but reversed the denial of compassionate relief as insupportable....

Prosecutor's Prejudicial Comments During Summation Required Vacation of Conviction on Weapons and Criminal Restraint Charges

State v. Kelly, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Judge Gummer wrote the panel's opinion in this case. The panel reversed defendant's conviction on weapons and criminal restraint charges, based on a set of facts remarkably similar to those in State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80 (2004)....