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

Acoli v. Parole Board Returns to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has added Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board to its docket. The matter is before the Court due to a dissent in the...

Adverse Employment Action Not Required for Law Against Discrimination Claim

Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ., ___ N.J. ___ (2021). Justice LaVecchia wrote the opinion in this important Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") case for a unanimous Court. There were two...

Ancillary Settlement Jurisdiction

Butt v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2021). This opinion by Judge Hardiman involved an attorneys' fee dispute. In the underlying consolidated...

New Supreme Court Appeals Raise Evidence, Workers' Compensation Act, Nominal Damages, and Affidavit of Merit Issues

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new matters. As is often the case, they are a varied group. In Lapsley v. Sparta Tp., the question...

The Supreme Court Largely Upholds the Attorney General's Directives Regarding Release of Police Officer Disciplinary Information

In re Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive Nos. 2020-5 and 2020-6, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). As discussed in more detail here, the Appellate Division upheld the power of the Attorney...

Justice Solomon Gets Tenure

Yesterday, the Senate voted 37-0 to give life tenure, until age 70, to Justice Solomon. He will reach that mandatory retirement age in 2024. After Governor Murphy, a Democrat, nominated...

A Criminal Appeal as of Right and a "Void as Against Public Policy" Contract Issue for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has taken up two more cases. One of those is a criminal appeal, State v. Clark, which is before the Court as of rights...

The Lodzinski Murder Jury's Guilty Verdict is Affirmed by a 3-3 Supreme Court Vote

State v. Lodzinski, 246 N.J. 331 (2021). As discussed here, this was a highly publicized case, in which a jury found defendant was guilty of the first-degree murder of her...

New Cases for the Supreme Court Involving the Tort Claims Act, Palimony and the Statute of Frauds, the "Three Strikes Law," and the "Ministerial Exception" of the First Amendment

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new cases. One of those appeals is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division. The others involve unpublished...

An Appeal About Whether a Case is Immediately Appealable, and Two Others for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certification in three more cases. One of them, Harris v. City of Newark, involves an appellate practice issue. The question presented...

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 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 353637 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146…Last

A Municipal Court Administrator is Employed by the Township, Not the Administrative Office of the Courts

Palmisano v. State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The opening paragraph of Judge Marczyk's opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulates what the appeal was about and what the result was. "Plaintiff Lindsay Palmisano appeals from the trial court's April 1, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice against defendant State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and Municipal Division (AOC) pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the AOC, thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we conclude plaintiff was employed by Vernon Township (Township), not the AOC, and, therefore, we affirm."...

Supreme Court to Take Up Two Published Appellate Division Opinions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new appeals. One is before the Court on leave to appeal. The Court granted certification in the other matter....

South Seaside Park Can Detach Itself From Berkeley Township

Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). South Seaside Park is a small (490 year-round residents) barrier island community that has been annexed to the Township of Berkeley ("the Township"). South Seaside Park sought to deannex itself from the Township and to be annexed instead to the Borough of Seaside Park. South Seaside Park followed a statutory petitioning procedure in doing so. The Township refused consent. South Seaside Park went to court and won a ruling from the Law Division that rejected the Township's refusal. The Appellate Division affirmed. Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, the Supreme Court affirmed as well....

Megan's Law "Not Likely to Pose a Threat to the Safety of Others" Extends to Non-Sexual as Well as Sexual Re-Offenses

In re Registrant S.O., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This appeal presented a pure legal issue relating to the "public safety prongs" contained in the termination provisions of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), and the Community Supervision for Life statute ("CSL"), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c). Judge Vanek crystallized that "novel" issue as "whether, on a registrant's application to terminate Megan's Law and CSL obligations, the phrase ‘not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others' should be broadly interpreted with the trial court considering threats to safety from subsequent non-sexual and sexual offenses or whether the inquiry should be limited to the threat of sexual re-offense only." The panel held that the broader view was the correct one....