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

Fictitious Party ("John Doe") Pleading, and Deadlines to Seek Dismissal Based on Statute of Limitations

Baez v. Paulo, 453 N.J. Super. 422 (App. Div. 2018). This was a medical malpractice/wrongful death case. The Law Division had precluded plaintiff from adding three doctors as defendants after...

62 Years Since Appeal of Pennsylvania R. Co., a Key Case on Leave to Appeal

On this date in 1956, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Pennsylvania R. Co., 20 N.J. 398 (1956). Along with Romano v. Maglio, 41 N.J. Super. 561...

Failure to Submit Affidavit of Merit Timely Does Not Always Call for Dismissal With Prejudice

A.T v. M. Cohen, M.D., 231 N.J. 237 (2017). "This was an appeal as of right in a medical malpractice case in which plaintiff was a minor. Due to counsel's...

Judge Fuentes Warns: When Seeking Dismissal With Prejudice as a Discovery Sanction, "Follow the Procedural Safeguards" of Rule 4:23-5

Thabo v. Z Transportation, 452 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 2017). Under Rule 4:23-5, failure to make discovery can, in certain circumstances, result in dismissal of a complaint with prejudice....

The Smoke-Free Act Does Not Preempt A Municipal Ordinance Limiting Smoking in Retail Tobacco Establishments

Sparroween, LLC v. Township of West Caldwell, 452 N.J. Super. 329 (App. Div. 2017). Plaintiffs operated the Cigar Emporium in West Caldwell. In that business, they sell tobacco products, but...

In a Construction Defect Case, the Supreme Court Again Clarifies Statute of Limitations Law

The Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association, Inc. v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 230 N.J. 427 (2017). This opinion, by Justice Albin for a unanimous Court, involved a lengthy construction...

Appellate Court's View That Merits of a Case Are Weak Does Not Justify Abandoning Deferential Standard of Review of Trial Level Discovery Rulings

Capital Health System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., 230 N.J. 73 (2017). These two consolidated cases involved rulings on discovery disputes, a subject that rarely reaches the Supreme Court....

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...

Despite Girsh v. Jepson, A District Court Need Not Always Determine the Best Potential Recovery in Order to Approve a Class Action Settlement

Halley v. Honeywell International, Inc., 861 F.3d 481 (3d Cir. 2017). This was an environmental contamination class action involving lands in Jersey City, New Jersey. After "five years of extensive...

State Comptroller Need Not Give Reasons for Auditing Local Government Units

Larkins v. Solter, 450 N.J. Super. 519 (App. Div. 2017). The Office of the State Comptroller ("OSC") was established by the Legislature in 2007, in order to subject governmental financial...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19…Last

Four New Criminal Appeals, and a Lone Civil Matter, for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five new appeals. Four of them are criminal cases and one is a civil appeal....

The "Limited Attorney Exemption" of the Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act is Held Unconstitutional as Violative of the Separation of Powers and Void for Vagueness

Anchor Law Firm, PLLC v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 et seq. ("DACCA"), prohibits debt adjusters in New Jersey from operating for a profit. There is an exception for attorneys not "principally engaged" (a term not defined in the statute) in debt adjustment. That exception, adopted in a 1986 amendment, replaced a prior version of the DACCA that had exempted all attorneys from its scope....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Where a Party Files a Suit Alleged to Violate the UPEPA But Quickly Dismisses It, Can Defendants Then Get Counsel Fees Under the Statute?

On May 15, judges on Part C of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Satz v. Keshet Starr. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a defamation suit against defendants. Defendants filed an o order to show cause to dismiss the case and for attorneys' fees under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 et seq. ("UPEPA"). The UPEPA, enacted in 2023, sought to make it more difficult to use the legal system as a weapon to bully individuals into silence by filing what have been known as SLAPP ("strategic lawsuits against public participation") suits....

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....