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

Five Three-Judge Panel Decisions Will Get Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five new appeals. All five involve opinions by three-judge panels of the Appellate Division. But that is where the similarities end. One appeal has an expedited briefing schedule, that appeal and two others are before the Court on grants of certification, and the other two are matters in which the Court granted leave to appeal on somewhat similarly phrased questions presented. All but one of the Appellate Division's opinions appealed from were unpublished ones....

Certified Trial Lawyers May Pay Referral Fees to Out-of-State Counsel, As Such Fees Are Not for Legal Services

In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, __ N.J. ___ (2025). Rule 1:39-6(d) creates an exception to the general principle, embodied in Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 7.2(c) and 7.3(d), that New Jersey attorneys may not pay referral fees, with only limited exceptions. The exception in Rule 1:39-6(d) permits only attorneys who have satisfied the requirements of becoming certified by the Supreme Court in a particular area of practice to pay referral fees....

A Discovery/Sanctions Anniversary

On February 12, 1951, the Supreme Court decided Lang v. Morgan's Home Equipment Corp., 6 N.J. 333 (1951). The Court's unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Vanderbilt, appears to be the first decision from the Court relating to principles of sanctions for discovery violations....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Does Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), Apply to an Arbitration Clause in a Condominium Purchase Agreement?

Tomorrow, February 12, a panel of judges on Part F will hear oral argument in Wang v. COA Hudson 99, LLC. The case involves an arbitration clause in a Subscription and Purchase Agreement for a condominium residence unit. Plaintiffs on this appeal, purchasers of the unit, declined to close because, they asserted, the unit was substantially smaller than had been represented to them. Defendants in this case filed a demand for American Arbitration Association ("AAA") arbitration, contending that the buyers had breached the contract by failing to close and that defendants were entitled to retain the buyers' deposit....

Defendants Waived Their Contractual Right to Arbitration, and the Appellate Division Had Jurisdiction to So Determine

Hopkins v. LVNV Funding, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This appeal arose out of a Special Civil Part action by LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV") on January 26, 2022 to collect an alleged $746.71 debt originally owed to Credit Bank One, N.A. LVNV alleged that it was the successor in interest and owner of the alleged debt, at the tail end of a long line of successors. Hopkins filed an Answer and a class action counterclaim, alleging that LVNV and the others in its chain of successors were not licensed to conduct business as consumer lenders or sales finance companies pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act ("CFLA"), N.J.S.A. 17:11C-1 to -49....

A Slew of New Supreme Court Grants of Review

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in seven new appeals. Two of those matters (one civil and one criminal) involve leave to appeal, while the others are before the Court on grants of certification....

No Personal Jurisdiction Over the Archdiocese in D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia

D.T. v. Archdocese of Philadelphia, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson involved whether New Jersey courts had personal juriisdiction over the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, a defendant. Suing both the Diocese and Michael J. McCarthy, a priest assigned by the Archdiocese to a Pennsylvania parish, plaintiff alleged that McCarthy had sexually abused him during an overnight trip to a private home in New Jersey. On leave to appeal, as discussed here, the Appellate Division affirmed a ruling of the Law Division that New Jersey courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese on the facts presented. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and affirmed in a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, who stated that "an n appellate court reviews de novo a trial court's legal determinations regarding personal jurisdiction, but its review of a trial ‘court's factual findings with respect to jurisdiction' is limited to determining whether those findings are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record."...

One From "Column A" (the Supreme Court) and One From "Column B" (the Appellate Division)

In re Estate of Michael D. Jones, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As summarized here, this case involved whether an ex-spouse's rights as the pay-on-death beneficiary on her deceased ex-husband's U.S. savings bonds were superseded by the parties' divorce. The couple's divorce settlement agreement ("DSA") required, as relevant here, that the ex-husband ("Michael") pay the ex-wife ("Jeanine") $200,000 in installments over time. The DSA did not specifically provide for the disposition of savings bonds....

Three New Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in three new appeals. All are from unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division....

The Supreme Court Says That Buck v. Henry Meant What It Said

Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This medical malpractice wrongful death appeal arose under the Affidavit of Merit ("AOM") statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 et seq., and the Patients First Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41. Those statutes, whose history Justice Fasciale laid out in detail, require, in short, that a malpractice plaintiff provide an affidavit of merit from an expert who specializes in the same "specialty or subspecialty" as the defendant doctor if that doctor has a specialty....

1 2 34…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....