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

Applying the Statute of Limitations for Foreclosure Cases

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Weiner, 456 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2018). Judge Fisher issued this short decision in this case today. The body of the opinion consumes...

Equitable Adoption Doctrine Cannot be Used to Destroy Inheritance Rights

In re Estate of Douglas Castellano and Parentage of Gregory Bock, 456 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 2018). This unusually captioned appeal presented a Chancery issue that was right up...

Tenant May be Evicted for Damage Caused Solely by Subtenant

Rampersaud v. Hollingsworth, 456 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 2018). The opening paragraph of this opinion by Judge Fisher well summarized the issue on this appeal, and the result. "In...

Halloween: A Not-at-All Spooky Anniversary in Defamation Law

On October 31, 1955, the Supreme Court decided Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 19 N.J. 552 (1955). It was a 6-1 decision, with Justice Jacobs writing for the...

Appellate Division Statistics for the 2017-18 Term

The annual summary of Appellate Division statistics is out. They cover the 2017-18 Term, which ended on August 31, 2018. Once again, the figures have stayed remarkably consistent from year...

The Supreme Court Will Address "Not Raised Below," and Three Criminal Appeals

The Supreme Court has announced that it has granted certification in three cases, all criminal matters, and that a civil case will be before it on an appeal as of...

A Pinata, A Pole, and an Injury

Piech v. Layendecker, 456 N.J. Super. 367 (App. Div. 2018). This opinion by Judge Fasciale effectively summarizes all the issues, and the result on each issue, in its opening paragraph....

No Meeting of the Minds Where Arbitration Clause Did Not Specify Arbitration Forum or Process

Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 456 N.J. Super. 613 (App. Div. 2018). This opinion by Judge Fasciale today is yet another case arising out of an arbitration clause. Plaintiff, having...

A Split Appellate Division Decision in a Medical Malpractice Case Goes to the Supreme Court

T.L. v. Goldberg, which was the subject of a reported Appellate Division opinion where the panel split 2-1 in favor of plaintiffs, reversing the Law Division and awarding plaintiffs a...

A Banner Day in the Appellate Division for Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC and Its Clients

Russo v. Friedrich, 2018 WL 4904555 (App. Div. Oct. 10, 2018); City of Newark Public Schools v. OPEIU Local 32, 2018 WL 4905414 (App. Div. Oct. 10, 2018). It's a...

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 747576 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177…Last

No Ethics Violation in Attorney Purchasing Another Attorney's Name as a Keyword for Internet Searches, the Supreme Court Says, With a Caveat

In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). [Disclosure: I represented an amicus curiae in this appeal]. As Justice Noriega said in his opinion for a 5-1 majority (Justice Pierre-Louis did not participate), this appeal "presents the narrow question of whether it is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for an attorney or law firm to purchase a competing attorney's or law firm's name as a keyword." The Court found it permissible, with a caveat. Justice Fasciale dissented....

Four Criminal Law Cases, and a Qui Tam Appeal, for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in five new appeals. One of them is before the Court on leave to appeal, while in the others the Court granted certification....

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....