The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in five new appeals. Two of those are from published opinions of the Appellate Division, while the other three bring up unpublished rulings by that court.
The first appeal from a published opinion is Wunsch v. CTE Republicans for Englewood Cliffs. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Among other issues in this matter in which plaintiff sued for defamation and defendants sought dismissal of the complaint under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61, should the complaint have been dismissed or is limited discovery necessary to determine if plaintiff would be able to prove the elements of a defamation claim?” The Law Division granted dismissal, and the Appellate Division affirmed. That court’s opinion was reported at 483 N.J. Super. 231 (App. Div. 2026) and was summarized here.
The other appeal from a published Appellate Division decision is Fairkings Partners, LLC v. Daniels. The question presented there is “Under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.16a, which provides that a tenant has ‘three business days after the date on which a warrant for removal is posted to the unit or a lockout is executed due to nonpayment of rent . . . to submit a rent payment,’ is the tenant required to pay the amount in the judgment of possession, or the amount of rent due and owing at the time the tenant makes the payment?” The Law Division ruled that the required amount was stated in the judgment of possession and the Appellate Division affirmed in an opinion reported at 482 N.J. Super. 520 (App. Div. 2025).
In J.H. v. The Lawrenceville School, the question presented is “Was the scope of the arbitration provision in the school’s re-enrollment agreement ambiguous, and does the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, 9 U.S.C. § 401, apply to this matter?” The Law Division invalidated the arbitration agreement. A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed but modified that ruling in an unpublished per curiam opinion, relying on the federal statute to hold that plaintiff’s claims were not arbitrable and were not barred by the statute of limitations.
State v. Williams presents this question: “After the initial legal justification for an investigatory stop of a vehicle dissipates, do police officers only need to articulate facts that would warrant heightened caution to prolong the stop and remove a passenger from the vehicle?” The Law Division denied defendant’s motion to suppress and the Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished per curiam decision by a two-judge panel.
Finally, the Supreme Court will hear State v. Harley, a murder case that was argued in the Appellate Division and then re-argued twice. The question presented there is “Under the circumstances presented, was defendant in custody when he was interrogated by detectives and should the detectives have given him Miranda warnings?” The Law Division admitted incriminating statements obtained from defendant under circumstances that a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, found were obtained unconstitutionally. The panel vacated defendant’s murder conviction and remanded for what would be a third trial.
