NJ Appellate Law Blog

Use Variance Applicant Need Not Show That Subject Property is the Only Available Site for the Use

Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263 (2013). Himeji, LLC applied to the Union City Board of Adjustment for a use variance, density, height, and other variances, and a waiver necessary for the construction of a...

Another Big Win for the Hoboken Rent Board

Heyert v. Taddese, 431 N.J. Super. 388 (App. Div. 2013). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represented the Hoboken Rent Leveling & Stabilization Board in this appeal and in the other...

Condemnation Commissioners' Award Becomes "Nugatory" Upon Appeal and Cannot be Reinstated

State, Comm'r of Transportation v. Shalom Money Street,LLC, 432 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2013). What happens to an award issued by condemnation commissioners for a taking when parties appeal that award...

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...

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 68 69 707172 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84…Last

The Second and Third Published Appellate Division Decisions of the Current Term

As September turned to October, the Appellate Division issued its second and third published opinions of the Term. One was a decision by Judge Vinci in a civil appeal. The other ruling, in a criminal appeal, was authored by Judge Perez Friscia....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Did it Violate a Class Action Settlement That Barred Mass Opt-Outs to Allow Opt-Outs From a Marketing Campaign That Solicited Opt-outs?

On Tuesday, September 30, judges on Part G of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Esposito v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The case follows from a $100 million nationwide class action settlement that had required class members who decided to exclude themselves from the settlement and potentially pursue their own litigation against Verizon to opt out individually, and barred mass opt-outs. However, Murphy Advocates, LLC, a Colorado law firm conducted a marketing campaign to create a mass opt-out that attracted about 11,000 class members who responded to Murphy that they wished to opt out....

A Pair of New Criminal Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. Both are criminal appeals. One is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division, while the other is from an unpublished per curiam decision by a three-judge panel....

Can a Plaintiff in a Civil Case Refuse to Testify at Trial After Being Served With a Defense Notice in Lieu of Subpoena and Having Been Ordered to Testify by the Trial Judge? An Anniversary

On this date in 2005, the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005). The case involved a plaintiff who was shot in an apartment building in Atlantic City, which left him paralyzed. He brought a negligence suit against a number of defendants, including Atlantic City Housing & Urban Renewal Associates ("ACHURA"), the owner of the apartment building....