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

Two Issues Under the Construction Statute of Repose

Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76 (2013). Deciding when the ten-year construction statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1, begins to run is often a difficult issue for courts. In this case,...

New Jersey State Firemen's Association is a "Public Agency" for Open Public Records Act Purposes

Paff v. New Jersey State Firemen's Ass'n, 431 N.J. Super. 278 (App. Div. 2013). John Paff is a frequent litigant under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. ("OPRA"). He...

When "Piecemeal" Adjudication is Required

Waskevich v. Herold Law, P.A., 431 N.J. Super. 293 (App. Div. 2013). What happens in a case where the parties have agreed to arbitrate some claims between them but not others? Do...

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Says Mandatory Judicial Retirement at Age 70 is Not Unconstitutional

This blog previously posed the question "Is Mandatory Judicial Retirement at 70 Unconstitutional?" That was because some Pennsylvania judges had challenged that state's requirement that judges retire at age 70,...

The "Temporary Validity Doctrine" of Administrative Law

E.B. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services, 431 N.J. Super. 183 (App. Div. 2013). This appeal challenged the issuance of Medicaid Communication No. 11-03 by the defendant Division. In that...

A Flaw in a Model Jury Charge?

Koseoglu v. Wry, 431 N.J. Super. 140 (App. Div. 2013). This opinion by Judge Lihotz was issued in April but was approved for publication only today. It is a medical malpractice case,...

City Clerk Did Not Comply With Faulkner Act, But That Did Not Constitute a Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act

Tumpson v. Farina, 431 N.J. Super. 164 (App. Div. 2013). This case arose under the Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1 to -210. [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represented defendants in this...

Commercial Landlord Has No Duty to Ensure That Building's Water Supply is Free of Legionnaire's Disease

Vellucci v. Allstate Ins. Co., 431 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2013). Plaintiff's decedent was employed by Allstate at an office building owned, designed, built, and managed by Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. Plaintiff...

The Timeliness of Estate-Related Litigation

In re Estate of Thomas, 431 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2013). Rule 4:85-1 establishes a short time period (four months for New Jersey residents and six months for non-residents, subject to...

A Fine Mess Involving the Designation of Trial Counsel Rule

Hernandez v. North Jersey Neurosurgical Assocs., 2013 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1146 (App. Div. May 14, 2013). This decision, in a medical malpractice case, was designated as not precedential, but perhaps should be reconsidered...

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 67 686970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82…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....