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....

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?"...

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....

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:...

As discussed here, last September the Supreme Court announced that many oral arguments in the Appellate Division would henceforth be livestreamed, as Supreme Court oral arguments have been since 2005. Briefs in many appeals to be argued orally were to be posted online as well....

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....

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....

S.V. v. RWJ Barnabas Health, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This opinion by Judge Sabatino addressed the denial of a defense summary judgment on a claim of medical malpractice. As the opinion stated at its outset, "plaintiff S.V. alleges that defendants prematurely released her sister ("J.V.") from their care after J.V. was treated for seventeen days on a voluntary admission basis for psychiatric care at defendants' facility. The day after her psychiatric discharge, J.V. crashed her car into a utility pole, injuring plaintiff S.V. who was a passenger in the vehicle."...

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....