Appellate Division Published Opinions During and After Its Recess

Bruce Greenberg
Posted byBruce GreenbergMay 1, 2025

The final day of the Appellate Division’s two-week recess was April 25.  On that date, the Appellate Division issued a published opinion.  Two more published opinions followed during the current week.  Here are summaries of those opinions.

State v. Balbosa, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025).  This opinion by Judge Natali was the only published ruling issued by the Appellate Division during its recess.  The appeal was from an order denying post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.  Defendant had pled guilty to one count of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(a)(iii), based on his possession of two videos showing a scantily-clad child engaging in provocative sexual acts.  On appeal, defendant contended that his trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective and that the statute was overbroad and vague.  The Appellate Division rejected these and other arguments and affirmed.

J.H. v. Warren Hills Bd. of Educ., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025).  This appeal centered on the proper interpretation of two 2019 amendments to the statutes of limitations and procedural requirements for civil actions alleging sexual abuse. The Law Division had denied a motion for partial summary judgment made by the public entity defendants.  In an opinion by Judge Gilson, the Appellate Division affirmed that decision, agreeing with plaintiff’s view of the two statutory amendments.

State v. C.C.W., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025).  The first sentence of Judge Susswein’s opinion in this appeal stated that it “presents a novel statutory construction question under the Overdose Prevention Act (OPA or Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-30 to -31 and N.J.S.A. 24:6J, which was enacted to save lives by ‘encouraging people who witness or experience a suspected drug overdose to seek medical assistance. . . .’  N.J.S.A. 24:6J-2.”  The issue was how the statute’s “precise, multi-part definition” of “drug overdose,” a definition “broader than the common meaning of that term,” applied to defendant, who had been charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine.  Defendant moved to dismiss the case based on her view of that definition, but the Law Division denied that motion.  The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and, construing this remedial statute liberally, held that the statute’s “plain language does not foreclose the possibility that a defendant might qualify for immunity based on their chronic use of a CDS, i.e., an addiction, provided the acute condition requiring medical assistance is the result of such prior CDS use” (emphasis by Judge Susswein).  The panel remanded the matter for further proceedings.