Recent Opinions, AppDiv

The first appeal of a final decision (as opposed to a request for trial de novo) is heard by the Appellate Division.  Opinions from the Appellate Division are published only about 10% of the time.  Unpublished opinions have no precedential value and therefore below are only the recent published opinions of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division:

 

12.14.10        

12.13.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in State v. Walker, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010).

                The Appellate Division also published its decision in Komninos v. Bancroft Neurohealth, Inc., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010).

                The Appellate Division also published its decision in State v. Reevey, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 


12.10.10           The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions

12.09.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in State v. Lopez, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

                The Appellate Division also published its decision in I/M/O Issuance of Access Conforming Lot Permit No. A-17-N-N040-2007 by the New Jersey Department of Transportation for Block 136, Lots 2 and 3 in Mahwah Township, New Jersey, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

                The Appellate Division published its decision in Marioni v. 94 Broawday, Inc., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010).
 

12.08.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in State v. Maricic, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010).
 

12.07.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions
12.06.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions

12.03.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in Mosteller v. Gella Naiman and Coyne Tree Service, Inc., N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

12.02.10           The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.
12.01.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.


11.30.10           
The Appellate Division published its decision in ATFH Real Property, LLC v. Winberry Realty Partnership, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

                The Appellate Division also published its decision in State v. Lyons, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010).
 

11.29.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in DYFS v. N.D. and E.W., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

                The Appellate Division also published its decision in State v. Hand, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

11.26.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.
11.25.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

11.24.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in Matthew G. Carter Apts. v. Richardson, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

                The Appellate Division also published its decision in Seals v. County of Morris, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

11.23.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

11.22.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in DYFS v. J.D. and J.B., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

11.19.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in Gensollen v. Pareja, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). 

11.18.10             The Appellate Division published its decision in Spectraserve, Inc. v. Middlesex County Utilities Auth., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). The Appellate Division affirmed the order of the Law Division that denied Spectraserve's request for attorneys' fees as the "prevailing party" in litigation against the Middlesex County Utilities Authority under New Jersey's Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. A special master previously found that Spectraserve was entitled to the attorneys' fees, which totalled over $100,000, but the trial judge (and, here, the Appellate Division) rejected that because the OPRA request was overly-broad and non-specific, and the authority's response was reasonable.

11.17.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

11.16.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in McGee v. Township of East Amwell, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). The Appellate Division addressed an appeal from a final decision of the Government Records Council (GRC or Council) under Open Public Records Act (OPRA or the Act), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. The Appellate Division held that records created by a former public official are subject to the "deliberative process privilege" under OPRA. And, if the employee asserts that she waived her privilege as to her "personnel records", but failed to raise this issue before the Council, the procedure is to remand the issue to the Council to determine if there has been w waiver and, if so, whether there are countervailing concerns or policies that would preclude release of such records.

11.15.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

11.12.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in Washington Commons, LLC v. City of Jersey City, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). The Appellate Division held that a violation of a condition to a variance also violates the land-use ordinance. The municipality may enforce the violation via a complaint for injunctive relief, specific performance or other appropriate action. Jersey City enforced its Board Adjustment's resolution, which required the developer to convey fee simple title to affordable-housing units to the city for $1 per unit) via motion rather than complaint. The Appellate Division therefore vacated the Law Division's enforcement order.

11.11.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

11.10.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in Racanelli v. County of Passaic, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). The Appellate Division held that the notice of claim provision in the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3 (specifically, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8a set a 90 day deadline) does not apply to actions brought under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, and plaintiff was not barred from pursuing the CEPA claim in the Law Division because the whistle-blowing claim was not raised in an administrative challenge to the layoff.

11.09.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in State v. Green, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). The court held that motor vehicle operators charged with speeding are to obtain discovery on: (1) the speed-measuring device's make, model, and description; (2) the history of the officer's training on that speed-measuring device, where he was trained, and who trained him; (3) the training manuals for the speed-measuring device and its operating manuals; (4) the state's training manuals and operating manuals for the speed-measuring device; (5) the officer's log book of tickets written on the day of defendant's alleged violation; (6) the repair history of the speed-measuring device used to determine defendant's speed for the past twelve months; and (7) any engineering and speed studies used to set the speed limit at the section of highway where defendant's speed was measured. The court also held that, in New Jersey, the Stalker Lidar speed-measuring device had not been proved to be scientifically reliable and its results inadmissible. The court remanded for further proceedings. 

                The Appellate Division also published Frederick v. Smith,__ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). In this case, plaintiffs sued Merrill Lynch after a party who plaintiffs believed defrauded them had them pay their investment directly into Defendant Maxwell Baldwin Smith's personal account with Merrill Lynch. The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's dismissal of the claim against Merrill Lynch because plaintiffs could not establish any relationship between themselves and Merrill Lynch; thus, no duty of care owed.

11.08.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.
11.05.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

11.04.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in the consolidated appeals of Mendez v. South JerseyTransportation, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). The court upheld the court below's finding that "extraordinary circumstances" existed for the extension of the 90-day Tort Claims Act deadline, N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, where plaintiffs' attorneys waited until they viewed the videotape depicting events relating to the motor vehicle accident, which they diligently requested, before filing the claims notices.

11.03.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.
11.02.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions. 
11.01.10             The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.
10.29.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.
10.28.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

10.27.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in the appeal of I/M/O Anthony Hearn, Department of Education, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). Here, the court upheld the decision that, upon successful appeal to the Civil Service Commission of disciplinary action taken against him under the state's workplace anti-discrimination policy applicable to all employees, a state employee was entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees under the regulatory provisions of Title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. A mandatory fee-shifting regulation applied to the employee in this case although he was not in the permanent career service. The Appellate Division also published its decision in the appeal of Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Garner, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). In this foreclosure case, the court held that an order granting summary judgment, striking defendant's contesting answer, entering default, and returning the matter to the Office of Foreclosure is interlocutory.

10.26.10            The Appellate Division did not report any appellate opinions.

10.25.10            The Appellate Division published its decision in the appeal of Sussex Commons Ass., LLC v. Rutgers, The State Univ., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). In this appeal, the issue arose out of Plaintiffs filing of a formal request under the Open Public Records Act with the custodian of records for Rutgers, the State University, seeking access to 18 categories of documents concerning the Environmental Law Clinic operated by Rutgers Law School in Newark. The request sought documents related to the clinic's finances and its representation of two private citizens' groups that were opposing plaintiffs' proposed development of an outlet mall. The trial court ruled that the clinic was not subject to OPRA and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's ruling exempting the clinic from the provisions of OPRA and remand for the court to determine whether the specific documents requested by plaintiffs are exempt from disclosure under the definition of "government record" in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. The Appellate Division instructed the trial court to also review and decide plaintiffs' requests under our state's common-law right of access.

                The Appellate Division also published its decision in the consolidated appeals of New Jersey Div. of Youth and Fam. Srvcs. v. T.S. and  N.J. Div. of Youth and Fam. Srvc. v. K.G., __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2010). This appeal involved a termination of parental rights challenge involving a now 12-year-old girl, an unusual culmination of post-trial events, when taken together, called into questionwhether the defendant-mother had removed the harm precluding reunification and whether the possible detriment posed by keeping the parent-child relationship intact was outweighed by the potential benefits of terminating the mother's parental rights. The Appellate Division was persuaded the additional facts, although not present at the time of trial, must nevertheless be assessed by the trial court before a judgment of guardianship can be entered. The Appellate Division therefore vacated the judgment and remanded to the trial court for further review regarding the evidence bearing on prongs two and four of the best-interest test.
 

Looking for more published decisions?  Gann Law Books's New Jersey Appellate Practice online version, which is available to those purchasing the hard copy, includes recent published decisions.  If filing an appeal in the Appellate Division in New Jersey, you are better served by citing to the most recent case law.  You can find New Jersey Appellate Practice at www.gannlaw.com, where you can purchase the 2011 version and see what is included with your purchase:
                                      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Website Builder