The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five more appeals.  One of those matters is before the Court on leave to appeal. In the others, the Court granted certification.

The leave to appeal case is E.T. v. The Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “In this matter in which plaintiffs allege that Boys and Girls Clubs of America failed to implement policies and procedures addressing sexual abuse that could have prevented their sexual abuse by a counselor at an affiliated member club in New Jersey, do New Jersey courts have personal jurisdiction over Boys and Girls Clubs of America?” The Law Division held that New Jersey courts had specific personal jurisdiction over that national organization. In a published opinion by a three-judge panel, the Appellate Division reversed.

Of the remaining four appeals, only one is from a published Appellate Division decision. That case is In re Verified Petition for the Proposed Creation of a PK-12 All-Purpose Regional School District, where the question presented is “Under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11, does the Borough of Sea Bright have standing to withdraw from a merged school district with the Oceanport Board of Education and the Shore Regional High School District Board of Education to join the all-purpose regional Henry Hudson School District?” The Commissioner of Education determined that Sea Bright had such standing. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Smith v. Newark Community Health Centers, Inc. presents this question:  “Under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 to -11, is defendant Newark Community Health Centers, Inc., organized exclusively for educational purposes, organized for charitable purposes such that a source-of-funds assessment was required, or organized exclusively for hospital purposes such that it is liable for up to $250,000 under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8?” Plaintiff had appealed a Law Division decision that granted a defense motion for summary judgment on grounds of immunity. A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.

Here is the question presented in Reed v. Muoio, a putative class action: “In this matter where the Council on Local Mandates (Council) declared unconstitutional N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.1, the requirement that municipalities install mobile video recording systems in newly acquired police vehicles, as an unfunded mandate, and also stated that its “determination renders nugatory the $25 surcharge described in N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(i)” assessed against individuals convicted of driving while intoxicated to fund the installation of mobile video recording systems, is judicial review available to determine if the Council exceeded its authority when it invalidated the $25 surcharge?” The Law Division dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. An unpublished opinion by a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed.

Finally, the question presented in Gallardo v. Walmart is “Can spreading salt on a parking lot during a storm be an ‘unusual circumstance’ such that the ongoing storm rule adopted in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 246 N.J. 546 (2021), does not apply, and can a landowner be held liable for the actions of a contractor if the contractor was granted summary judgment?” Plaintiff won a jury verdict at trial, but an unpublished per curiam opinion of a two-judge Appellate Division panel vacated that judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.