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

No Magic Words Needed for Insurer to Reject Under-Insured Motorist Arbitration Award and Obtain a Trial

Vega v. 21st Century Ins. Co., 430 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2013). More and more, courts are rejecting formalisms and looking to the realities of a situation. This opinion by Judge...

If Your Client Switches Attorneys, It'll be Hard to Sue the New Lawyer for Tortious Interference

Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109 (2013). When a personal injury plaintiff in a potentially big case switches attorneys, the attorney being replaced may see a potentially large fee disappearing. It is...

Eyewitness Testimony and the Dram Shop Act

Halvorsen v. Villamil, 429 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 2013). Does the Dram Shop Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:22A-1 to -7, which makes a licensed alcholic beverage server liable for serving a visibly intoxicated...

Non-Conforming Structure That is More Than "Partially" Destroyed Cannot be Rebuilt Without a Variance

Motley v. Seaside Park Bd. of Adj., 430 N.J. Super. 132 (App. Div. 2013). N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68 allows a non-conforming use or structure to be "restored or repaired in the event of partial...

A Pro-Plaintiff Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Decision From the Third Circuit

Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, 709 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2013). The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692g ("FDCPA"), requires debt collectors to include in collection letters a "debt...

A Smorgasbord, Courtesy of Judge Fisher: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, and Service of Process

Tatham v. Tatham, 429 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 2013). It is not often that a family law opinion touches on so many fundamental procedural issues. This opinion by Judge Fisher addresses...

A Class Action Plaintiff Must be a Member of the Class That He or She Seeks to Represent

Rosen v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 430 N.J. Super. 97 (App. Div. 2013). The holding of this decision affirmed a defense motion to dismiss this putative class action case for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff had...

Mount Laurel's Ban on Billboards is Not Unconstitutional

Interstate Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. Mt. Laurel Tp. Bd. of Adj., 706 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2013). The Township of Mount Laurel, best known for its role in a series of affordable...

Condemning Authority Need Not Negotiate With Party Other Than Record Title Holder

Borough of Merchantville v. Malik & Son, LLC, 429 N.J. Super. 116 (App. Div. 2013). In this condemnation case, one of the defendants, LB-RPR REO Holdings, LLC ("LB"), the assignee of a...

2010 Amendment to Statute of Frauds Can Apply to Palimony Agreements Made Prior to Amendment's Effective Date

Maeker v. Ross, 430 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2013). In 2010, the Legislature amended the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), to cover "palimony" agreements, that is, "[a] promise by one party to...

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 70 717273 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....