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

Does a Homeowners Insurance Policy That Covers Losses from "Hidden Decay" Protect Against Loss From "Hidden Defects"?

Bardis v. Stinson, 444 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2016). This insurance coverage matter is a case with an unusual sequence of appellate events. The case was argued before the...

Two Appellate Division Wins for LDG

My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, was successful in two Appellate Division cases within the last few days. Last week, in Villaquiran v. All-State International, Inc., 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub....

Portee Claims, and the Need to Have Witnessed the Horrific Event

Litwin v. Whirlpool Corp., 436 N.J. Super. 80 (App. Div. 2014). In Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980), the Supreme Court established "a cause of action for damages to...

Election Laws Have Flexibility

Regalado v. Curling, 430 N.J. Super. 342 (App. Div. 2013). The lesson of this short opinion by Judge Sapp-Peterson, issued the day after this appeal was orally argued due to the need...

2010 Amendment to Statute of Frauds Can Apply to Palimony Agreements Made Prior to Amendment's Effective Date

Maeker v. Ross, 430 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2013). In 2010, the Legislature amended the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), to cover "palimony" agreements, that is, "[a] promise by one party to...

Even Under New Jersey State Law, Standing Has Limits

Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co.., 2012 WL 3870323 (App. Div. Sept. 7, 2012). As discussed here, New Jersey has more liberal rules for standing to sue than do the...

Reconsideration Denied, But Earlier Opinion Clarified Despite That

New Jersey DYFS v. I.S.. 423 N.J. Super. 124 (App. Div. 2011). The Appellate Division is often asked to reconsider its decisions. It does so only rarely, and even more rarely does...

Insurer Need Not Pay for Alleged "Diminution in Value" of Automobile After Accident and Full Repair, Where Insurance Policy Expressly Excluded Such Coverage

Kieffer v. High Point Ins. Co., 422 N.J. Super. 38 (App. Div. 2011). This matter involves three consolidated cases. In each, one or more insureds sued their auto insurer after their cars had been...

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....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....