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

The Appellate Division Rejects Ascertainability as a Class Action Criterion, and Changes the Rules for Interlocutory Appeals of Class Certification Decisions

Daniels v. Hollister Co., 440 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 2015). Readers of this blog have gotten their fill (including, most recently, here and here) of discussion and analysis of...

Another Step Forward for Electronic Filing in the Appellate Division

Electronic filing in the New Jersey appellate courts has been on the way for several years. Previous steps toward that end were discussed here and here. Today, attorneys and firms...

Burgos v. New Jersey (Public Employee Pension Case) Argued

Today, the Supreme Court of New Jersey heard oral argument in this important case. The procedural history of the case is discussed here. The argument ran from just after 10...

The Supreme Court Grants Direct Certification in Burgos v. New Jersey, the Public Employee Pension Case

Burgos v. New Jersey is a case that asserts that the State's failure to make the full amortization payment required by statute as part of the State's contribution to the pension...

The Supreme Court Speaks About the Construction Statute of Repose

State v. Perini Corp., 221 N.J. 412 (2015). Three years ago, the Appellate Division issued an opinion that addressed whether the construction statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1a, runs from the...

Supreme Court's Decision in Shelton v. Restaurant.com Applies Retroactively to Plaintiffs

Bohus v. Restaurant.com, Inc., 784 F.3d 918 (3d Cir. 2015). [Disclosure: I argued this appeal for plaintiffs in this case]. Retroactivity of judicial opinions is sometimes a difficult question. The...

NJSBA Task Force: Don't Change the Process for Supreme Court Appointments

In the wake of Governor Christie's decisions not to reappoint Justices Wallace and Hoens, the New Jersey State Bar Association convened a Task Force to study judicial independence. The Task...

Supreme Court Will Review Hill International, Inc. v. Atlantic City Bd. of Educ.

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it has granted review of the Appellate Division's decision in Hill International, Inc. v. Atlantic City Bd. of Educ., 438 N.J. Super. 562...

Law of the Case Doctrine Does Not Extend From One Party to Another Party Not in Privity

State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266 (2015). Two defendants who had been charged in the same indictment with many of the same crimes sought to suppress certain evidence. The Law...

Another Failure to Act by COAH, and Another Court Gives a COAH Power to the Courts Instead

In re Failure of the Council on Affordable Housing to Adopt Trust Fund Commitment Regulations, 440 N.J. Super. 220 (App. Div. 2015). The Fair Housing Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-329.2(a), states that...

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 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 979899 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....