Last Friday was Juneteenth, and courts were closed, making it a short week. During that week, there were no Supreme Court opinions issued, but the Appellate Division published decisions in two matters, one of which encompassed fourteen cases. Here are summaries:
New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. H.V., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This opinion by Chief Judge Sumners involved fourteen separate cases from seven different counties. As phrased by Chief Judge Sumners, the common question presented was “whether the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), in its capacity as representative payee designated by the Social Security Administration (SSA), can use the fourteen minors’ Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (survivor) benefits (collectively, Social Security benefits) to reimburse itself for the maintenance costs incurred for the minors’ care and custody.” In each case, the minors moved to terminate the Division’s reimbursement practice. Each Family Part ruled against the minors, though for various reasons, one of which was federal preemption. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Parts but declined to adopt the preemption rationale. Instead, the panel held that the reimbursement was permitted by New Jersey law, and rejected due process, equal protection, and other arguments presented by the minors.
Lento Law Group, P.C. v. Hendrickson, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). Chief Judge Sumners authored this opinion, too. Defendant posted unfavorable comments on the Better Business Bureau’s website media about the policy of plaintiff, a law firm, of non-refundable retainers. Plaintiff sued for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Applying the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 et seq., which allows defendants in defamation cases to seek prompt dismissal of what the Chief Judge characterized as “meritless lawsuits intended to chill their constitutionally protected free speech,” the trial court granted dismissal, applying the standards of analysis for motions to dismiss and concluding that defendant’s statements were not defamatory. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing to apply the summary judgment standard rather than the motion to dismiss standard. The Appellate Division affirmed. Chief Judge Sumners held that the trial court had applied the correct standard and that defendant’s posts were opinions and therefore not actionable.
