While this blog was on hiatus for much of January, the Appellate Division was in high gear, issuing thirteen published opinions. Here are summaries of some of those opinions:

In the Matter of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s April 17, 2023, 55 N.J.R. 661(b) “Environmental Justice Rules,” Adopted Amendments N.J.A.C. 7:1C Et Seq., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App, Div, 2026). This appeal, with its lengthy caption, resulted in a 72-page opinion by Judge Currier. Appellants challenged the Department of Environmental Protection’s adoption of administrative rules that implemented the Environmental Justice Law, N.J.S.A. 13:1D-157 to -161. That statute was intended to correct the historical pattern of disproportionately siting sources of pollution in “overburdened” communities of color and/or of low-income residents. Appellants mounted a number of attacks on the regulations. After laying out in detail the applicable standards of review, the Appellate Division rejected all of appellants’ challenges and upheld the regulations.

Wunsch v. CTE Republicans for Englewood Cliffs, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This was a defamation case. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, which comprised an organization dedicated to electing Republicans to local offices in Englewood Cliffs, Republican candidates for such offices, and others, had accused him, in mailed flyers, of corruption. The flyers referred to plaintiff as “EC Democrats Leader.” Defendants sought dismissal of the case and a fee award pursuant to the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61. A series of orders resulted, in which the Law Division denied defendants’ applications and found that plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to withstand dismissal and required discovery in order to resolve. In an opinion by Judge Gummer, the Appellate Division affirmed most of the orders and dismissed another order as moot, giving plaintiff a victory.

Wronko v. Monmouth County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) case was an “Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week” and the background of the case was discussed here. Writing for the Appellate Division, Judge Marczyk affirmed the Law Division’s ruling in favor of the Society, holding that the Society was not subject to OPRA because the Society was not a public agency. Instead, the Society was an instrumentality of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office.

NC Roseville Senior 2016 UR, LLC v. Howard, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). Judge Susswein wrote the Appellate Division’s opinion in this residential landlord-tenant case. The first paragraph of his opinion essentially says it all. “Plaintiff-landlord NC Roseville Senior 2016 UR LLC (Roseville) appeals the October 24, 2024 Special Civil Part order dismissing with prejudice its eviction complaint against defendant-tenant Dorothy Howard for failure to pay rent. Judge Damian Santomauro issued a comprehensive and thoughtful written opinion, holding that by executing a renewal lease with defendant and by accepting the first three rent payments in the new term, plaintiff waived its right to evict defendant for her prior nonpayment of rent, applying the rule of law set forth in Montgomery Gateway E. I v. Herrera, 261 N.J. Super. 235 (App. Div. 1992). After reviewing the record in light of the governing law, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Santomauro's cogent written opinion.”

UAW, Region 9 of the UAW v. New Jersey Governor Phillip Murphy, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This appeal challenged the casino exemption of the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act N.J.S.A. 26:3D-59(e). As Judge Sabatino summarized in his opinion for the Appellate Division, the statute “generally prohibits smoking in indoor public places and workplaces in New Jersey but expressly excludes, among a few other places, certain designated areas within casinos and casino simulcasting facilities.” Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the exemption violated a state constitutional “right to safety,” was unconstitutional “special legislation,” and denied equal protection under the New Jersey Constitution. The Chancery Division rebuffed all of plaintiffs’ arguments and dismissed all claims with prejudice. The Appellate Division agreed that the Supreme Court has never recognized a constitutional right to safety and that this was not special legislation. But the panel remanded for further proceedings because the Chancery Division had employed an improper test in dismissing plaintiffs’ equal protection claim.

C.J.S. v. A.S., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). [Disclosure: I argued this case for the successful appellant]. This ruling, discussed here, was originally issued as an unpublished opinion. On January 27, 2026, however, the Appellate Division re-designated it as a published opinion, which was authored by Judge Marczyk.

State v. Norcross, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This highly-publicized, closely-watched matter involved the State’s appeal of the dismissal of its 111-page indictment of six defendants on charges of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit theft by extortion, financial facilitation of criminal activity, misconduct by a corporate official, and official misconduct. In a 92-page opinion by Judge Rose, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of all charges against all defendants, though to some extent for different reasons than those offered by the Law Division. The panel found that some charges were time-barred and others failed to state an offense.