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

Property Owner is Not Liable for Injuries to Dirt Bike Rider Who Did Not Have Permission to Ride on the Property

Callahan v. Tri-Borough Sand & Stone, 478 N.J. Super. 505 (App. Div. 2024). N.J.S.A. 39:3C-18 addresses the liability of property owners when certain types of vehicles are operated on their...

The Wage Payment Law Does Not Override An Independent Contractor Agreement Between A Real Estate Salesperson And A Broker For Whom The Salesperson Works

Kennedy v. Weichert Co., 257 N.J. 290 (2024). As discussed here, this putative class action case addressed whether written agreements under which plaintiff, a licensed real estate salesperson, entered in...

Non-Disparagement Provision in Law Against Discrimination Settlement Agreement Violates Public Policy

Savage v. Township of Neptune, 257 N.J. 204 (2024). N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a) ("section 12.8") is a provision of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). Enacted in 2019 during the "#MeToo"...

The Second Half of April

In the second half of April, the Supreme Court issued one published opinion and the Appellate Division delivered four such rulings. Here are summaries: C.R. v. M.T., 248 N.J. 428...

The County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey Is Not a Public Agency Subject to the Open Public Records Act

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, 257 N.J. 87 (2024). The ACLU of New Jersey sought five categories of records from defendant...

The Supreme Court Reverses in Comprehensive Neurosurgical v. The Valley Hospital

Comprehensive Neurosurgical, P.C. v. The Valley Hospital, 257 N.J. 33 (2024). As discussed here, the question presented to the Supreme Court in this appeal, which was the subject of today's...

Two Arbitration Decisions by the Appellate Division

This week, the Appellate Division decided two very different kinds of arbitration matters. Yesterday, Judge Sabatino issued an opinion in Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., 478 N.J. Super. 229...

"Illusory Discounts" Violate the Consumer Fraud Act, But Private Plaintiffs Cannot Prevail

Robey v. SPARC Group, LLC, 256 N.J. 541 (2024). Today saw a relatively rare 4-3 decision from the Supreme Court. The majority consisted of Justice Solomon, the author of the...

Alcoholism As a Disability Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination: An Anniversary

On this date in 1988, the Supreme Court decided Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J 575 (1988). The Court's unanimous opinion, written by Justice Clifford, stated that "[t]he principal...

The Entire Controversy Continues to Have Potency

Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, 478 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 2024). Judge Vanek wrote this opinion for the Appellate Division in this putative class action case. Her first...

1 2 3 4 5 678 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 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83…Last

Retired Policeman's Pension Benefits Were Wrongly Paid to His Estranged Spouse Rather Than to His Estate, Where He Had Not Designated Anyone to Receive the Pension Benefit if He Died

Isaac v. Board of Trustees, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Two kinds of benefits are payable to retired members of the.Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS"). One is a pension benefit, a part of the member's compensation for past services. Pension benefits go to the person whom the member designates, or to the member's estate if no designation is made. The other is a survivor's benefit, which goes to the member's widow for the duration of his or her widowhood. Former Newark policeman Keith Isaac made no designation as to his pension benefits, though he did list his estranged wife, Roxanne, as his spouse when he filed for retirement. Based on that, Isaac's pension benefits were distributed to Roxanne. Isaac's estate contested that, and today the Supreme Court held that the estate should have gotten the pension monies....

The Supreme Court Clarifies New Jersey's Automobile Exception to the Requirement of a Search Warrant

State v. Fenimore, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions protect the people against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and prohibit the issuance of search warrants without "probable cause." Both federal and New Jersey law, however, recognize an "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. But New Jersey's automobile exception is narrower than the federal exception, as the Supreme Court stated in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015). Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appellate Division in this case had interpreted Witt too broadly in reversing a Law Division decision to exclude evidence from a warrantless search. The Supreme Court reversed and excluded the evidence....

"Liberal Standards" for Standing "Are Not Equivalent to No Standards At All," the Supreme Court Says

New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As Justice Pierre-Louis observed in her opinion for a unanimous Court in this case today, New Jersey state courts have long "take[n] a more liberal approach to standing than federal law." But in this appeal, the statute sued upon, the Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. ("FPA"), stated that only a "franchisee" could sue its franchisor. Because plaintiff here ("NJCAR") was not a franchisee but an association of franchisees, NJCAR lacked standing to bring a FPA case....

Compassionate Release Act Does Not Require Physical Examination of Inmates Seeking Relief, But Denial of Relief in This Case Was Arbitrary and Capricious

M.R. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Plaintiff appealed the denial of his petition for release under the Compassionate Release Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51 ("CRA"). He argued that he had not been physically examined by a physician, and that the statute required a physical examination. The Appellate Division determined that the statute did not require a physical examination and upheld the denial of compassionate release. Today, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Hoffman, the Supreme Court agreed that no physical examination was required, but reversed the denial of compassionate relief as insupportable....