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

A Statute of Limitations Issue of First Impression in a Privacy Case

Smith v. Datla, 451 N.J. Super. 82 (App. Div. 2017). This opinion by Judge Geiger was his first published opinion since his elevation to the Appellate Division. It involved the...

An LAD Opinion From the Supreme Court in a Disability Discrimination Case

Grande v. Saint Clare's Health System, 230 N.J. 1 (2017). Today's unanimous, scholarly opinion by Justice Solomon, with an equally scholarly concurring opinion by Jsutice LaVecchia, arose from an appeal...

A Res Ipsa Loquitur Case for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in McDaid v. Aztec West Condominium Association. The question presented in that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's...

A Treatise on Personal Jurisdiction From Judge Lihotz

Dutch Run-Mays Draft, LLC v. Wolf Block, LLP, 450 N.J. Super. 590 (App. Div. 2017). Issues of personal jurisdiction crop up fairly frequently, despite New Jersey's settled principle of applying...

As the Summer Months Begin, the Supreme Court Takes Three More Cases

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would review three more cases. One of those is before the Court as of right, due to a dissent in the Appellate...

33 Years Since Kelly v. Gwinnell Introduced Social Host Liability

On June 27, 1984, the Supreme Court decided Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538 (1984). There, Chief Justice Wilentz, writing for a 6-1 majority (Justice Garibaldi was the lone dissenter),...

OPRA Covers Electronically Stored Information, Including Fields in E-Mails

Paff v. Galloway Tp., 229 N.J. 340 (2017). In this OPRA case, as discussed here, plaintiff sought to obtain copies of fields in e-mails sent by the Galloway Township Clerk...

Standing, Attorneys' Fees, Disability, and Search and Seizure: The Latest Cases for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has granted review in four more cases. In Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden Planning Bd., the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court...

An Anniversary in Redevelopment Law

Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court decided Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007). It was the first time that the Court focused on...

Making Up for Lost Time

Several days out of the office last week, and work on a large appellate brief, have left me well behind our appellate courts, who have produced a number of decisions...

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 71 72 73 74 757677 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....