Rappaport v. Pasternak, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Justice Patterson's opinion for a unanimous Court today arose out of the arbitration of a dispute among members of limited liability companies. After the arbitrator made his award, the Chancery Division confirmed that award. But the Appellate Division, which viewed the record as showing that the arbitrator had improperly ruled on an issue not presented by the parties, modified the award. On further review, the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Chancery Division's confirmation of the award....

Mauer v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Plaintiff, a State of New Jersey employee, filed lawsuits against the State, several State agencies, and certain employees of those agencies under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq. The two cases were consolidated. The law firm of Brown & Connery ("B&C") appeared for defendants....

State v. Jones, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Recovery Court, formerly known as Drug Court, is a diversionary program involving intensive supervision and other techniques intended to lead to an ultimate expungement of criminal convictions in many cases. Judge Natali's opinion for the Appellate Division in this case today addressed one aspect of the criteria for admission to Recovery Court....

Musker v. Suuchi, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2025). The question presented in this appeal, as stated by Justice Fasciale in his unanimous opinion, was "whether ‘commissions' are considered ‘wages' under the Wage Payment Law (WPL), N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.15, and are therefore subject to the WPL's protections." As summarized here, both the Law Division and the Appellate Division granted a defense motion for summary judgment, holding that "commissions" were not "wages" but were "supplementary incentives" not covered by the WPL....

It's time to catch up with the courts again. Last week, the Supreme Court issued two opinions, while the Appellate Division published one decision. Here are summaries:...

Blackridge Realty, Inc. v. The City of Long Branch, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Pursuant to a written developer's agreement, plaintiff ("Blackridge") was a designated redeveloper under the City of Long Branch's Oceanfront-Broadway Redevelopment Plan. That plan was adopted pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law ("LRHL"), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et seq. Blackridge successfully completed its redevelopment project....

Voynick v. Voynick, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The start of Judge Bergman's opinion in this case today offered a good summary of the issues in this Family Part appeal. "In this appeal, we address the legal standards to be applied by a reviewing court concerning applications for termination or modification of permanent alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j)(3) based on the retirement of an obligor when the judgment or order establishing the alimony obligation was entered prior to the 2014 amendment of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23."...

C.E. v. Elzabeth Public School District, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This opinion by Judge Smith today was the second ruling by the Appellate Division in this case. The previous decision was summarized here....

S.V. v. RWJ Barnabas Health, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This opinion by Judge Sabatino addressed the denial of a defense summary judgment on a claim of medical malpractice. As the opinion stated at its outset, "plaintiff S.V. alleges that defendants prematurely released her sister ("J.V.") from their care after J.V. was treated for seventeen days on a voluntary admission basis for psychiatric care at defendants' facility. The day after her psychiatric discharge, J.V. crashed her car into a utility pole, injuring plaintiff S.V. who was a passenger in the vehicle."...

Hopkins v. LVNV Funding, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This appeal arose out of a Special Civil Part action by LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV") on January 26, 2022 to collect an alleged $746.71 debt originally owed to Credit Bank One, N.A. LVNV alleged that it was the successor in interest and owner of the alleged debt, at the tail end of a long line of successors. Hopkins filed an Answer and a class action counterclaim, alleging that LVNV and the others in its chain of successors were not licensed to conduct business as consumer lenders or sales finance companies pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act ("CFLA"), N.J.S.A. 17:11C-1 to -49....