Tomorrow is Independence Day and the courts are closed. Many have taken vacation time in this short week. But not the Appellate Division, which issued two published opinions this week.  Here are summaries.

Gottsleben v. Annese, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). As Judge Sabatino said in his opinion in this case today, under caselaw dating back many years, “a residential owner is not civilly liable for a hazardous condition of the public sidewalk abutting the owner's property unless the owner's conduct made the natural condition of the sidewalk more dangerous.” There is a different rule, however, for commercial properties.

Plaintiff slipped and fell on a public sidewalk in front of defendants’ residential property. Defendants were not living there yet, as they had decided to renovate the house before moving in. The renovations were ongoing when plaintiff fell, on a date following several snowfalls, including several inches on the date of plaintiff’s fall.  Defendant testified at deposition that defendants had shoveled and treated the sidewalk after that most recent snow and before plaintiff fell.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Law Division granted. Plaintiff appealed, making two arguments. First, she contended that because defendants were not living at the property, it should have been treated as commercial, not residential. Second, and independent of the first argument, plaintiff submitted that defendants had worsened the condition of the sidewalk, creating liability even under the standard for residential properties.

The Appellate Division disagreed on both counts and affirmed the Law Division. The property was residential even though defendants were not yet residing there. “It is undisputed that defendants' intention was to move into the house they purchased after the renovations were completed.” And “there is no evidence that defendants had acquired the house as an investment property to be improved and then sold. Nor is there proof that defendants were planning to lease the house to others. Although defendants were not living there at the time of plaintiff's fall, the property continued to be zoned as residential and intended for use as a residence. There was nothing ‘commercial’ about defendants’ ownership.”

The second argument failed for lack of proof. She relied on photos of the sidewalk taken after the fact. After a fact-intensive analysis, the panel found that “[t]he condition that plaintiff claims she saw [at the time she fell] could not have been the same condition that is depicted in the photos taken later in either the [day of her fall] or on the following day.” There were no genuine disputes of material fact to support liability on plaintiff’s alternative theory.

Hopson v. Cirz, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This was an election case in which Judge Firko wrote the panel’s opinion. There were a handful of disputed votes in a very close race for local Fire District Commissioner. The case implicated a number of election statutes, which Judge Firko discussed at length. Ultimately, the panel ordered that a new election for the post be held where voters could choose between plaintiff and defendant for the open position.