The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three new matters. All three involve grants of certification, but one also is an appeal as of right due to a relatively rare dissent in the Appellate Division.
The appeal as of right case is Association for Governmental Responsibility, Ethics and Transparency v. Borough of Mantoloking. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Does the Open Public Records Act [OPRA] or the common law right of public access require disclosure of an attorney’s identity when the attorney sends an email with legal advice to a prosecutor about an ongoing criminal prosecution?” In an opinion reported at 478 N.J. Super. 470 (App. Div. 2024), the Appellate Division majority affirmed a ruling of the Law Division and held that neither OPRA nor the common law right of access required disclosure. The dissent argued that OPRA required disclosure.
The other OPRA case is Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Bd. of Educ. That case presents this question: “Does the Open Public Records Act compel the disclosure of email logs of public officials’ personal email accounts discussing public business?” The Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 481 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2025), found that OPRA required disclosure, as the email logs were government records for purposes of that statute. That decision reversed a ruling of the Law Division that the logs were not government records and, alternatively, that even if they were government records, production would be too burdensome.
The final appeal is Monarch Communities, LLC v. Township of Montville. The question presented in that case is “What is the governing standard for a zoning board’s consideration of a variance for an inherently beneficial use -- senior citizen congregate housing in this case -- after the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d), and what is the effect of the municipality’s denial of a previous request to rezone the property to permit senior citizen congregate housing and the Planning Board’s rejection of that use for the site in its recent Master Plan Amendment?” The zoning board had denied requested variances. The developer appealed, and the Law Division reversed the denial. The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s decision in an unpublished per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel.