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

Tomorrow's Anticipated Blizzard Affects Oral Arguments in New Jersey's Appellate Courts and in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court has announced that it has adjourned the oral arguments scheduled for tomorrow. One of the cases to be argued was a major consumer class action case, Dugan...

Tenant Who Receives a Rent Subsidy Under New Jersey's "S-RAP" Program Can't be Evicted for Non-Payment of Additional Rent

175 Executive House, LLC v. Miles, 449 N.J. Super. 197 (App. Div. 2017). A tenant who receives a rent subsidy under the federal "Section 8" voucher program, 42 U.S.C. §1437 to...

Two More Suppression of Evidence Cases for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted leave to appeal in two criminal cases, each of which addresses the suppression of evidence. In State v. Atwood, the question...

Failure to Pay Arbitration Fees Breaches Agreement That Requires Arbitration

Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC, 228 N.J. 163 (2017). Plaintiffs bought used cars from defendants. In connection with those purchases, plaintiffs signed Dispute Resolution Agreements ("DRA's") that required any disputes...

Third-Year Law Students May Now Appear Before the Appellate Division

Today, the Supreme Court announced an amendment to Rule 1:21-3(b). That rule has, until now, permitted third-year law students at ABA-approved law schools to appear before trial courts or agencies...

Equity Affirms an Inventive Solution to an Environmental Dilemma

Matejek v. Watson, 449 N.J. Super. 179 (App. Div. 2017). Sometimes, judicial opinions do not require the citation of many cases in order to reach their result. That can be...

Withdrawing a Published Opinion

State v. Jones, 449 N.J. Super. 12 (App. Div. 2017). In the "old days," when judicial opinions appeared only in books, there was a procedure for withdrawing an Appellate Division...

Financial Institution's Non-Compliance With Internal Policy Does Not Create a Duty to Non-Customers

Wolens v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, 449 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2017). In the opening paragraph of his opinion for the Appellate Division today, Judge Sabatino encapsulated virtually...

Supreme Court Will Review a Defamation Case, a Vehicle Search Case, and a Warrantless Entry Case

The Supreme Court announced today the addition to three more cases to its docket. The first of those appeals comes from a published opinion of the Appellate Division. Petro-Lubricant Testing...

The "Time of Application Rule" and the Definition of an "Application for Development" That Triggers That Rule

Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Franklin Tp. Bd. of Adj., 448 N.J. Super. 583 (App. Div. 2017). The Municipal Land Use Law ("MLUL"), in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.5, contains a "time of application...

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 75 76 77 787980 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....