Filings in the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court in the last few days interfered with blogging about three published opinions that the Appellate Division issued during that time. Here are summaries of those decisions:

Amato v. Township of Ocean School District, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). This opinion by Judge Puglisi addressed what she called “a novel issue: whether a judge of compensation was required to recuse herself from presiding over a matter involving the application of a statute for which the judge was a sponsor in her prior capacity as a member of the Legislature.” Applying the abuse of discretion standard of review applicable to rulings on recusal motions, the panel found that recusal was not required. That affirmed the action of the judge of compensation in declining to recuse herself.

In re Verified Petition for the Proposed Creation of a PK-12 All-Purpose Regional School District, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). This case was the subject of a prior post before the case was argued. The issue, one “of first impression –– [was] whether a school district merged with another school district under N.J.S.A. 18A:8-44 has standing to withdraw from that district to join a newly formed all-purpose regional school district pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11.” The Oceanport and Shore Regional High School District Boards of Education appealed the decision of the Commissioner of Education that found that the Borough of Sea Bright had such standing. In an opinion by Judge Bergman, the Appellate Division affirmed.

State v. Carlton, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). This was an appeal from an extended-term sentence imposed on defendant as a persistent offender. As Judge Susswein recounted in his opinion for the Appellate Division, “[a]fter the initial [appellate] briefs were filed, the United States Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), holding that under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a jury—not a sentencing judge—must decide whether prior convictions used to establish the basis for enhanced sentencing had been committed on separate occasions.” That decision led the Appellate Division “to vacate defendant’s persistent-offender extended-term sentence and remand to the Law Division with instructions on how to remedy the constitutional violation.”