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

The Latest Supreme Court Grants of Review: A Tort Claims Act Notice Case, and the Effect of Zoning Board Conflict of Interests

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two more cases. The first is O'Donnell v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority. The question presented in that appeal, as phrased...

Should Two Attorneys be Able to Split an Appellate Oral Argument?

The Supreme Court announced that it is seeking comments on a proposed amendment to Rule 2:11-1(b)(3). That rule, which deals with oral argument in the appellate courts, currently states that...

A Sidewalk Liability Case Involving a Vacant Church

Ellis v. Hilton United Methodist Church, 455 N.J. Super. 33 (App. Div. 2018). The opinion in this case, issued today, involved a slip and fall on a sidewalk that abutted...

New Jersey Wins on Sports Betting in the U.S. Supreme Court

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 138 S.Ct. 1461 (2018). This blog has covered the history of the State of New Jersey's efforts to overcome the Professional and Amateur Sports...

The "Single Publication Rule" in the Internet Age, and the "Fair Report" Privilege

Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman, 233 N.J. 236 (2018). This defamation case, which involves an internet article about an employment discrimination lawsuit that was thereafter reprinted in somewhat different...

A Key Consumer Fraud Case for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in All the Way Towing, LLC v. Bucks County International, Inc. The question presented on this appeal, as phrased by the Supreme...

No Accidental Disability Benefits for Teacher Who Alleged Mental Disability as a Result of Three Incidents of Physical Contact at Work

Thompson v. Baord of Trustees, Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 233 N.J. 232 (2018). As discussed here, this case came before the Supreme Court by virtue of a dissent in...

ACLU v. Hendricks Goes Back to the Secretary of Higher Education to Develop a Full Administrative Record

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Hendricks, 233 N.J. 181 (2018). In 2016, in a decision reported at 445 N.J. Super. 452 (App. Div. 2016), and discussed here,...

Unemployment Benefits, Suppression of Evidence, and the Alleged Improper Exercise of Peremptory Challenges Based on Race Come Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two more cases. The first, Blake v. Board of Review, was discussed here. Since the Court had previously granted review...

Digging Out

This past Monday, I argued two appeals in the Supreme Court of New Jersey. They were the Accutane matters discussed and . In the period leading up to those arguments,...

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 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 676869 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....