The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new matters. All of those involve unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division.

In State v. Taylor, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Is a prosecutor’s denial of a Graves Act waiver under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2 reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, or for a patent and gross abuse of discretion, see State v. Rodriguez, 466 N.J. Super. 71 (App. Div. 2021)?” The Law Division upheld the prosecutor’s denial of the Graves Act waiver and a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed, applying the “patent and gross abuse of discretion” standard, the same test that the Law Division had used.

Fazio v. Altice USA presents this question: “Can mutual assent to an arbitration clause be established through a business’s practice of sending a customer service agreement without proving that practice was followed as to the plaintiff?” The Law Division granted a defense motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and send the case to arbitration. A two-judge Appellate Division panel affirmed that decision.

The question presented in Isaac (deceased) v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen’s Retirement System is “Does the doctrine of probable intent apply to a retirement application form, and is a hearing necessary to determine decedent’s probable intent?” The retirement system determined that decedent had made an effective designation under a statute that guided the disposition of retroactive pension benefits such that those benefits went to his estranged wife rather than to his estate. The estate appealed, and a three-judge Appellate Division panel vacated that decision and remanded for a hearing that is to focus on decedent’s probable intent.

Finally, here is the question presented in New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. I.J.R. and Z.T., Jr.: “Did the Division prove the four prongs of the ‘best interests of the child’ test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), in this matter concerning the termination of Z.T. Jr.’s parental rights to his son, P.D.R.?” The Family Part held that the Division had proved all the elements by clear and convincing evidence and a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed that ruling.