Another Quartet of New Cases for the Supreme Court | NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

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 Three are from unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division, while the fourth is from a published decision in a criminal case.

The criminal matter is State v. Kearney. The question presented for the Supreme Court, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Is defendant entitled to post-conviction relief on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective because defendant’s girlfriend and co-parent, who was the victim’s cousin and testified for the State, paid his legal fees?” The Appellate Division’s opinion, reported at 479 N.J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 2024), and discussed here, affirmed a Law Division ruling that denied defendant’s application for post-conviction relief.

In Diana v. LVNV Funding LLC, the question presented is “Does the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act, N.J.S.A. 17:11C-1 to -49, provide a private right of action?” A two-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in a per curiam opinion, held that there was no private right of action and affirmed the Law Division’s dismissal of the case.

Murray v. Punina presents this question: “Does N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 of the New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act (the No-Fault Act), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 to -35, prevent an injured plaintiff from presenting evidence of future medical expenses at a civil trial and recovering damages from the tortfeasor defendant for those future expenses when personal injury protection (PIP) benefits have not been exhausted?” In an opinion by a three-judge panel, the Appellate Division vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the matter for entry of a modified judgment.

Finally, this is the question presented in In the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to Amend N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11, a case that involved two consolidated appeals: “Did the State Parole Board appropriately deny the petition for rulemaking, which sought to amend N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2 to prevent the Board from categorically withholding from an inmate applying for parole the inmate’s own medical, psychiatric, psychological, and substance abuse records?” A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division issued a per curiam opinion that affirmed the decision of the Parole Board.

No Ethics Violation in Attorney Purchasing Another Attorney's Name as a Keyword for Internet Searches, the Supreme Court Says, With a Caveat

In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). [Disclosure: I represented an amicus curiae in this appeal]. As Justice Noriega said in his opinion for a 5-1 majority (Justice Pierre-Louis did not participate), this appeal "presents the narrow question of whether it is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for an attorney or law firm to purchase a competing attorney's or law firm's name as a keyword." The Court found it permissible, with a caveat. Justice Fasciale dissented....

Four Criminal Law Cases, and a Qui Tam Appeal, for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in five new appeals. One of them is before the Court on leave to appeal, while in the others the Court granted certification....

The "Limited Attorney Exemption" of the Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act is Held Unconstitutional as Violative of the Separation of Powers and Void for Vagueness

Anchor Law Firm, PLLC v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 et seq. ("DACCA"), prohibits debt adjusters in New Jersey from operating for a profit. There is an exception for attorneys not "principally engaged" (a term not defined in the statute) in debt adjustment. That exception, adopted in a 1986 amendment, replaced a prior version of the DACCA that had exempted all attorneys from its scope....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Where a Party Files a Suit Alleged to Violate the UPEPA But Quickly Dismisses It, Can Defendants Then Get Counsel Fees Under the Statute?

On May 15, judges on Part C of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Satz v. Keshet Starr. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a defamation suit against defendants. Defendants filed an o order to show cause to dismiss the case and for attorneys' fees under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 et seq. ("UPEPA"). The UPEPA, enacted in 2023, sought to make it more difficult to use the legal system as a weapon to bully individuals into silence by filing what have been known as SLAPP ("strategic lawsuits against public participation") suits....