Following up on yesterday’s post regarding criminal appeals decided by the Supreme Court in the first half of August, this post summarizes the Court’s decisions in civil cases during that same period.

Cardali v. Cardali, 255 N.J. 85 (2023). This opinion by Justice Patterson, for a unanimous Court, resolved an unsettled issue in family law. The question was the extent to which a party seeking to terminate alimony due to cohabitation must make a prima facie case of cohabitation in order to obtain discovery. Relevant to that were Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 202 (1999), and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n), a subsequent statute, which laid out a series of factors to be considered. But it had not been clear whether all of those factors needed to be satisfied in order to open the door to discovery. Justice Patterson’s opinion held that a movant need not present evidence on all the factors. If the movant offers competent proof of some of those factors that would, if not rebutted, warrant a finding of cohabitation, a court should grant limited discovery tailored to the contested issues. There was, of course, much more in this opinion, which should be required reading in full for those with cases in the Family Part.

Conforti v. County of Ocean, 255 N.J. 142 (2023). This case resulted in a 4-2 split in the Court (Judge Sabatino did not participate), and one of the longest set of written opinions of the current Term. Plaintiff brought suit for negligence after her husband had hung himself while being held at the Ocean County Jail. The Ocean County defendants sought summary judgment based on immunities under the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9-1 et seq. After that motion was denied, the case went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict of negligence. The trial court denied a motion for judgment NOV, and the County defendants appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate Division. The case went to the Supreme Court, which affirmed, as modified, the ruling below. Justice Wainer Apter wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice Rabner and Justices Solomon and Pierre-Louis joined. The dissent was by Justice Fasciale, joined by Justice Patterson.

Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, 255 N.J. 200 (2023). This matter was covered extensively in the popular press from its inception. Plaintiff was an art teacher and toddler room caregiver at the defendant Catholic school. An unmarried woman, plaintiff became pregnant, and the school terminated her employment for having had premarital sex in violation of Catholic doctrine. Plaintiff sued under the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-2 et seq. (“LAD”). Herself a Catholic and a graduate of the school, plaintiff acknowledged that, as a condition of her employment, the school had required her to abide by the tenets of the Catholic faith, which mandated that she abstain from premarital sex. The Law Division granted summary judgment to the defense, but the Appellate Division reversed, as discussed here. On further review, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the summary judgment in a unanimous opinion by Justice Solomon. The basis for that was the “religious tenets exception” contained in the LAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a), which states that “‘it shall not be an unlawful employment practice’ for a religious entity to follow the tenets of its faith ‘in establishing and utilizing criteria for employment.’” The school had done that here, so summary judgment was warranted.