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

Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee Proposes Amendments to Certain Appellate Rules

The Supreme Court's Civil Practice Committee has issued its biannual report on proposed changes to the New Jersey Court Rules. Some of the proposed amendments affect the Part II (Appellate) rules....

Trial Courts Must be Proactive in Ensuring Compliance With Rules Regarding Dismissal With Prejudice for Failure to Make Discovery

A&M Farm & Garden Center v. American Sprinkler Mechanical, LLC, 423 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 2012). No matter how often the courts inveigh against the failure of attorneys and parties to follow...

The Perils of Being a Pro Se Appellant

Barna v. Maldonado, 2011 WL 5244968 (App. Div. Nov. 4, 2011). The two appellants, who were plaintiffs in this case, appeared pro se. In the Law Division, they had won a jury...

Failure to Provide Trial Court's Supplemental Opinion to Appellate Division Dooms Appeal

Raspavolo v. New Jersey State Police, 2011 WL 2848475 (App. Div. Sept. 20, 2011). Plaintiff appealed the January 22, 2010 denial of his motion to vacate a previously entered dismissal of...

Omission of Alleged Cross-Claim From Appellate Appendix Bars Arguments Based on That Pleading

One Step Up, Ltd.v. Sam Logistic, Inc., 419 N.J. Super. 500 (App. Div. 2011). This opinion by Judge Graves contains a good discussion of a bailor's rights and responsibilities in connection with...

Citing Unpublished Rulings? Attach Them!

In re Trusts to be Established in the Matter of the Estate of Margaret A. Flood, Deceased, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2010). The holding of this case was...

Some People Are Just Too Eager to Appeal

Suazo v. Diletto, 2010 WL 4880700 (App. Div. Dec. 1, 2010). In this case, after receiving a copy of the appellant's brief and appendix, including the transcript of the proceedings...

Never Attach Documents to a Brief!

Muracco v. Township of Washington, 2010 WL 5376867 (App. Div. Nov. 16, 2010). Courts have repeatedly made clear that documents cannot be attached to a brief, but must be appended...

Cite the Record!

Motley v. Division of State Police, 2010 WL 4621498 (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2010). In this appeal of the pre-trial dismissal of a CEPA case, the Appellate Division found itself...

Don't Make the Court Ask You Twice

Fletcher v. Camden County Prosecutor's Office, 2010 WL 4226150 (App. Div. Oct. 27, 2010). In this appeal from a summary judgment, the Appellate Division questioned whether the appellate record was...

1 2 34…Last

The Last Seven Days

The last seven days, an especially busy period for me, featured one Supreme Court opinion and two published Appellate Division decisions. Here are summaries of those rulings:...

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....