The week of Thanksgiving and the week preceding it saw one Supreme Court opinion and four published rulings from the Appellate Division. Catching up, here are summaries.
State v. Nieves, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal actually involved two consolidated cases. By a 6-1 majority, the Court held that the State had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating, under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923),that expert testimony regarding Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (“SBS/AHT”) was reliable enough to be presented to a jury. Justice Pierre-Louis wrote the majority opinion. The dissent was by Justice Wainer Apter, who expressed the view that the Court had improperly substituted its judgment about the reliability of SBS/AHT for that of the relevant scientific community.
ML, Inc. v. Edison Tp. Bd. of Educ., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This was a public bidding dispute in which Judge Sabatino wrote the panel’s opinion. In this very fact-intensive matter, which was presented to the Appellate Division on emergent cross-applications, the court affirmed the ruling of the Law Division that the bidder deemed by defendant to be the “lowest responsible bidder” was indeed entitled to the award of the contract. The panel converted the Law Division’s preliminary determination in that regard to a final ruling.
Affrunti v. Reed Smith LLP, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Chief Judge Sumners wrote the Appellate Division’s opinion in this case, a lawsuit by plaintiff, a former associate attorney at the defendant law firm, under the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act, L. 2018, c. 9 (codified as amended in various sections of N.J.S.A.), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.14. The case came to the Appellate Division on leave to appeal as to several issues of first impression under the Allen Act. The result was to overturn a ruling of the Law Division that had improperly restricted plaintiff’s damages claim and limited discovery in multiple respects. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings.
Timpanaro v. Jenkinson’s Pavilion, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This case arose from a tragic drowning of a 69-year old man who was at defendants’ beachfront property to spend the day with his son, daughter-in-law and grandson. Plaintiffs sued for wrongful death and invoked other legal theories, but the Law Division granted a defense motion for summary judgment and the Appellate Division, applying de novo review, affirmed in an opinion by Judge Walcott-Henderson. A key reason for the result was that plaintiffs and decedent were made aware by a sign that said “BEACHES CLOSED NO SWIMMING” and posted red flags that swimming was prohibited and no lifeguards were present, so that defendants breached no duty. Judge Sabatino filed a concurring opinion suggesting that the language on the sign was ambiguous, but that (as plaintiffs testified at deposition) they knew that the beach was open for use but swimming was prohibited.
Arminio v. Monroe Tp. Bd. of Educ., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Judge Mawla wrote this opinion in this appeal under the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21 (“OPMA”). Plaintiff alleged that the defendant Board had violated the OPMA by appointing a person to fill a vacancy on the Board after having, in closed session, deliberated and decided to appoint that person in the public session that followed. The Law Division denied the Board’s motion for summary judgment and held that the OPMA had been violated. In an opinion by Judge Mawla that applied de novo review, the Appellate Division affirmed as modified.
