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

Future Advance Mortgages: The Law From the Past Remains the Law (With Perhaps One Exception) in the Present

Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. v. Benun, 226 N.J. 41 (2016). A future advance mortgage, in broad outline, is a mortgage that secures a loan that is made in stages, rather...

A "Graduating Class" Means a Group of Students Who Complete an Educational Program and Receive Diplomas or Certificates in the Same Given Year

In re Revocation or Suspension of Provisional Accreditation of Eastwick College LPN-to-RN Bridge Program, 225 N.J. 533 (2016). As Justice Patterson reminded us in her opinion in this case today,...

Supreme Court Grants Review in Hurricane Sandy Case

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it has granted certification in Oxford Realty Group Cedar v. Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Co. The question presented, as framed by the Supreme...

Another Mount Laurel Case for the Supreme Court?

In re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various Municipalities, 446 N.J. Super. 259 (App. Div. 2016). It has been 41 years since the Supreme Court issued its original Mount Laurel...

The Supreme Court Answers a Certified Question About Take-Home Toxic Torts

Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp., 225 N.J. 517 (2016). A "take-home toxic tort" is very different than a take-home final examination or take-out foods. It refers to a cause of action...

Summary Judgment for Breach of Settlement Agreement Reversed Due to Issues of Fact

Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (2016). One of the fundamental principles of summary judgment jurisprudence is that a court cannot grant summary judgment when there are genuine...

No Need for a Law Firm LLP to Have "Tail" Insurance, Says the Supreme Court

Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, LLP, 225 N.J. 423 (2016). Justice Fernandez-Vina issued an opinion in this legal malpractice appeal today, his first opinion in quite some time,...

Two Days, Two New Law Against Discrimination Opinions From the Supreme Court

In each of the last two days, the Supreme Court issued unanimous opinions involving the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42 ("LAD"). Yesterday, in Smith v. Millville...

Exceptional Circumstances Called for Extension of Discovery to Allow Medical Malpractice Plaintiff to Get a New Expert

Castello v. Wohler, 446 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2016). In Medina v. Pitta, 442 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2015), discussed here, the Appellate Division ruled that a physician...

Failure to Recreate the District Court Record as Ordered Leads to a Loss on Appeal

Roberts v. Ferman, 826 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2016). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c) deals with the circumstance in which a transcript of a District Court hearing or trial...

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 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 858687 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....