The Supreme Court Will Review Four Unpublished Appellate Division Decisions | NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

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 All of those involve unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division.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.

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....

The "Castle Doctrine"

State v. Bragg, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). A jury found defendant guilty of twelve charged counts, including attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, endangering, and two lesser-included offenses of harassment. Some of those charges involved the use of deadly force. Persons may not use deadly force if the can retreat with complete safety. But under the "castle doctrine," an exception to the general rule, a person "is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor." N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i). That doctrine derives from the common law....

No Arbitrariness in Rejection of Public Construction Bid That Failed to Include a Properly Signed, Required Consent of Surety

In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This public bidding case resulted in a 5-2 split at the Supreme Court, the first non-unanimous ruling of the current Term. Justice Hoffman wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Fasciale authored the dissent for himself and Justice Pierre-Louis....