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

Employer's Arbitration Provision Enforceable Even Though Employer Labeled it a "Training Module," Since Employee Understood She Was Agreeing to Arbitration

Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc., 244 N.J. 30 (2020). As discussed here, the Appellate Division in this case reversed a trial level ruling that compelled the plaintiff employee to arbitrate a...

Municipal Collective Bargaining Agreement as to Health Insurance Premium Contribution Rates is Overridden by State Statute

In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 244 N.J. 1 (2020). The question in this case was whether health insurance premium contribution rates for members of the Ridgefield Park Education...

A Dead Person Cannot Bring Suit

Repko v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc., 464 N.J. Super. 570 (App. Div. 2020). Judge Accurso's brief opinion in this case today addressed a "question [that] appears to...

Breaking News: Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds the Constitutionality of the COVID-19 Emergency Bond Act

New Jersey Republican State Committee v. Murphy, 243 N.J. 574 (2020). As discussed here, the Supreme Court directly certified a challenge to the recently adopted COVID-19 Emergency Bond Act. After...

The "Foregone Conclusion" Doctrine Requires a Criminal Defendant to Reveal the Passcode to His Passcode-Protected Cellphone

State v. Andrews, 243 N.J. 447 (2020). In a 4-3 decision that produced lengthy majority and dissenting opinions, the Supreme Court held that it does not violate a criminal defendant's...

Powering Up Again

The power outage resulting from last week's storm put a crimp in much of that week. So it is time once again to catch up with our Supreme Court and...

A Lesson About Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees From Judge Gooden Brown

Seigelstein v. Shrewsbury Motors, Inc., 464 N.J. Super. 393 (App. Div. 2020). When class action cases settle with a benefit to the class, class counsel, who normally handle those cases...

Consumer Fraud Act and Product Liability Act Claims Can Co-Exist

Sun Chemical Corp. v. Fike Corp., 243 N.J. 319 (2020). This opinion by Justice Solomon today resolved another question (originally, multiple questions, but reformulated into a single question by the...

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Pierre-Louis Supreme Court Nomination Set for August 24

In a joint announcement, Senate President Steve Sweeney, D-Gloucester, and Judiciary Committee Chair Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, revealed that the Judiciary Committee will take up Governor Murphy's nomination of Fabiana Pierre-Louis...

Municipal Special Assessment Invalid Where Expert Report on Which it Was Premised Lacked a Rational Basis

Crispino v. Sparta Tp., 243 N.J. 234 (2020). By statute, the Legislature has delegated to municipalities the power to impose special assessments on property owners to fund improvements that benefit...

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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 444546 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....