The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new appeals. Three are from unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division, while the fourth is from a published decision in a criminal case....
On Tuesday, April 1, judges of Part E of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Bonfiglio v. Borough of Sea Bright. That case addresses whether a 2017 noise ordinance adopted by the Borough was void as preempted by a prior ordinance of the Monmouth County Regional Health Commission ("MCRHC")....
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....
On this date in 1992, the Supreme Court decided Sica v. Wall Township Board of Adjustment, 127 N.J. 152 (1992). [Disclosure: I argued this case for the successful plaintiff]. Justice Pollock's opinion for a unanimous Court addressed a question that arose out of Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987). There, the Court held that a use variance applicant must satisfy an enhanced standard of proof that the variance is not inconsistent with the intent of the master plan and zoning ordinances. The question in Sica was whether that enhanced standard applied to inherently beneficial uses. The Court said that it did not....
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."...
In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, __ N.J. ___ (2025). Rule 1:39-6(d) creates an exception to the general principle, embodied in Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 7.2(c) and 7.3(d), that New Jersey attorneys may not pay referral fees, with only limited exceptions. The exception in Rule 1:39-6(d) permits only attorneys who have satisfied the requirements of becoming certified by the Supreme Court in a particular area of practice to pay referral fees....
Tomorrow, February 12, a panel of judges on Part F will hear oral argument in Wang v. COA Hudson 99, LLC. The case involves an arbitration clause in a Subscription and Purchase Agreement for a condominium residence unit. Plaintiffs on this appeal, purchasers of the unit, declined to close because, they asserted, the unit was substantially smaller than had been represented to them. Defendants in this case filed a demand for American Arbitration Association ("AAA") arbitration, contending that the buyers had breached the contract by failing to close and that defendants were entitled to retain the buyers' deposit....