The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four new cases.  All of them entail grants of certification.  There are two civil appeals and two criminal matters.

Arias v. County of Bergen is the only one of the four cases that involved a published opinion of the Appellate Division.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Was the County of Bergen entitled to immunity under the Landowners Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A;42A-2 to -10 where plaintiff fell in a hole while rollerblading in Van Saun County Park and filed suit against the County alleging negligence and seeking damages for injuries she suffered from the fall?”  The Law Division granted a defense motion to dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim.  The Appellate Division affirmed that decision in an opinion reported at 479 N.J. Super. 268 (App. Div. 2024).

The other civil appeal is In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and AFSCME Local 888.  That case presents this question:  “Does the grievance process for sexual harassment mandated by the federal government’s Title IX rules preempt the process set forth in the terms of a collective negotiation agreement that allow an employee to challenge their termination for just cause?”  The Public Employment Relations Commission denied a petition by Rutgers to restrain arbitration as preempted.  A two-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed that ruling in a per curiam unpublished opinion.

In State v. Hannah, the question presented is “Does a police officer need to be qualified as an expert to testify about cell tower locations based on phone records and explain that cell phones generally connect to cell towers based on physical proximity?  A jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder and a weapons charge.  On his appeal, the Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel, vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial, finding error in the allowance of the police officer to testify as a lay witness when he failed to qualify as an expert.

Finally, the question presented in State v. Butler is “Did the prosecutor’s reference to the television show The Wire in the opening statement; references to the Organized Crime Unit, gun violence, and trafficking in the City of Millville; and testimony that defendant was the target of a search warrant, individually or cumulatively amount to reversible error?”  Defendant, convicted of conspiracy and various drug offenses, including distribution of controlled dangerous substances (“CDS”), got a partial win on appeal from the unpublished opinion of a three-judge panel.  The Appellate Division reversed the conviction for conspiracy to distribute CDS, affirmed the other convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.