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

Appellate Jurisdiction and the Duty of Candor to the Court– All in a Four-Page Opinion

K.L.G. v. D.M.., 2011 WL 2321404 (App. Div. June 29, 2011). Rule 2:9-1(a) provides that once a notice of appeal is filed, "supervision and control" of the case pass to the...

Dubious Legislation

On June 20, Assemblymen Gary Chiusano (R-24th Dist.) and John Wisniewski (D-19th Dist.) introduced Assembly Bill 4135. That legislation would make appealable to the Appellate Division as of right, instead of on an...

Improper Remarks in Trial Summation Warranted New Trial on Damages Only

Risko v. Thompson Muller Automotive Group, Inc., 206 N.J. 506 (2011). This case came to the Supreme Court because of improper remarks made by plaintiff's counsel in his trial summation....

When A Client Legitimately Decides to Change Counsel, the Replaced Attorney Can't Sue the New Attorney

Nostrame v. Santiago, 420 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2011). Many attorneys have seen a potentially lucrative case walk out the door because the client has decided to switch attorneys. The...

Statute Extending Limitations Period for Environmental Claims by the State Covers Common Law Strict Liability Cause of Action

New Jersey Dep't of Environmental Protection v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 420 N.J. Super. 395 (App. Div. 2011). N.J.S.A. 58:10B-17.1(b) ("the extension statute") extends the normal statute of limitations for environmental...

The First Word on RPC 1.18

O Builders & Associates, Inc. v. Yuna Corp., 206 N.J. 109 (2011). In 2004, the Supreme Court adopted Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18. As it relates to the case decided...

Dismissal for Failure to Provide Discovery is Interlocutory and, Thus, Not Immediately Appealable

Ott v. Guardian Protective Services, Inc.., 2011 WL 2297783 (App. Div. May 24, 2011). Final orders are immediately appealable, while interlocutory orders, which do not conclusively resolve all issues as to all parties, are interlocutory...

Abbott v. Burke XXI (or is it XXII?)- Lots of Appellate Practice Issues

Abbott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332 (2011). The merits of this latest decision on the funding necessary to satisfy the mandate of article VIII, section 4, paragraph 1 of the New...

A Solomonic Decision Under Rule 4:5-1(b)(2)

Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 207 N.J. 428 (2011). Rule 4:5-1(b)(2) requires the first pleading of each party to disclose the names of any non-party who...

Tax Appeal Filed by Someone Other Than Taxpayer is Ineffective

Prime Accounting Dep't v. Township of Carney's Point, 421 N.J. Super. 199 (App. Div. 2011). A complaint that sought to contest the assessment of certain property was filed in the Tax...

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 35 36 373839 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....