The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in seven new appeals.  Two of those matters (one civil and one criminal) involve leave to appeal, while the others are before the Court on grants of certification. 

The civil case where leave to appeal was granted is Amato v. Township of Ocean School District.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Was decedent, a public school teacher, an essential employee under N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.11 during the relevant time period and therefore entitled to a rebuttable presumption under N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.12 that decedent’s contraction of COVID-19 was work-related and fully compensable for purposes of workers’ compensation benefits?”  In a published opinion summarized here, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed the determination of the Division of Workers’ Compensation that the decedent was an essential employee.

The criminal matter now before the Court on leave to appeal is State v. Lansing.  The question presented there is “Under Rule 1:2-1(b), should defendant’s expert be permitted to testify remotely at an evidentiary hearing and at trial?”  The Appellate Division, in a published opinion by a three-judge panel, affirmed the ruling of the Law Division that denied defendant’s motion to allow remotely in those two proceedings.

In two of the new appeals, the Supreme Court imposed an expedited, peremptory briefing schedule under which any motion for leave to appear as an amicus curiae must be filed by February 18, 2025 and must include the proposed amicus brief.  One of those cases is In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting & Construction Corp., Contract T100.638.  Here is the questioned presented in that matter:  “Was the New Jersey Turnpike Authority’s rejection of El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp.’s bid, on the basis that the consent of surety (COS) was not submitted with a power of attorney setting forth the signatory’s authority to sign the COS, arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable?”  The Turnpike Authority’s action was reversed by the Appellate Division in an unpublished, per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel that remanded for the Authority to award the contract to El Sol.

The other case with an expedited amicus briefing mandate is Bulur v. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.  That case presents this question:  “Did the Attorney General have authority to supersede the Paterson Police Department?”  As concisely summarized here, a published opinion of a three-judge Appellate Division panel held that the Attorney General had exceeded his authority in superseding the Paterson Police Department.

In C.A.L. v. State of New Jersey, the question presented is “Does the favorable termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which holds that a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been vacated, apply to the claims in plaintiffs’ complaint, and if so, did plaintiffs file suit within the two-year statute of limitations?”  A two-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirmed the ruling of the Law Division that plaintiffs’ complaint for damages was barred by the statute of limitations.

Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. E&N Construction Inc. presents this question:  “If an individual signs a contract on behalf of a corporate entity, and the contract has a provision stating that the individual guarantees payment, is the guarantee enforceable against that individual?”  The Law Division granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that they were not bound by the purported guarantees.  An unpublished per curiam opinion of a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division ruled that there was ambiguity in the signature lines of the contract and that whether defendants signed the contract as personal guarantors or strictly on behalf of the company requires the resolution of factual issues, resulting in the reversal of the summary judgment on this issue.

Finally, the question presented in Lopez v. Marmic LLC is “Is an individual’s immigration status relevant to whether an employer owes wages under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage and Payment Law, and is a barter arrangement legally distinct from an employer-employee relationship under New Jersey law?”  The Law Division held that the fact that plaintiff knowingly provided a false Social Security number on a W-4 form to obtain part-time employment with defendants barred his claim for wages.  A two-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed that ruling in an unpublished per curiam decision.