Case law

Borges v. Hamed

247 N.J. Super. 353 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 1990

The Court held that this mixed use property qualified "as a residential or non-commercial property" for purposes of applying the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. In Hambright v. Yglesias, 200 N.J. … The Ordinance does not explicitly establish civil liability on the part of a property owner for failure to maintain his abutting sidewalk.

Lewis v. Harris

378 N.J. Super. 168 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 2005

I join in the majority decision essentially for the reasons so clearly expressed by Judge Skillman. … To be sure, longstanding traditions restricting the right to marry are not immune from constitutional challenge. Yet, plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v.

New Jersey Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp.

296 N.J. Super. 402 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 1997

Clearly, subject-matter jurisdiction and justiciability are both threshold issues, that is, issues which must be addressed before considering the substantive merits of the matter. … The legislative history of the ADA clearly indicates that associations may bring ADA claims on behalf of disabled individuals.

State v. Napriavnik

147 N.J. Super. 36 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1977

Moreover, there is no warrant to extend N.J.S.A. 2A:115-6 beyond its clear, express and unequivocal terms by affording its immunity to those the Legislature did not intend to protect. … As an incident to this argument defendants also stress the absence of expert testimony concerning what this deviant group would view as obscene and whether the materials were obscene by this expertly established standard.

Tannen v. Tannen

416 N.J. Super. 248 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2010

"In the determination of the marital standard, the court establishes the amount the parties needed during the marriage to maintain their lifestyle. … "[T]he burden of establishing immunity from distribution of a particular marital asset or portion of an asset rests upon the spouse who asserts it." Pacifico v.

In re Adoption of Baby T.

308 N.J. Super. 344 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1997

Hyman), it did not intend a result in this case that would void *358 Baby T.’s adoption, allow him to have died an orphan, and immunize Dr. Zedie against the consequences of her alleged dereliction in causing his death. … adoption of a child by a deceased father enable the child to qualify for receipt of worker’s compensation benefits by payable on account of the father’s work-related death.

Serraino v. Mar-D, Inc.

228 N.J. Super. 482 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 23, 1988

It would be inconsistent with the legislative intent to interpret these provisions imposing liability upon subcontractors for their violation of the Prevailing Wage Act as simultaneously immunizing a contractor from liability … Any general contractor could clearly underbid competitors for a public project by relying on a bid of a subcontractor, knowing that the subcontractor would have to violate the provisions of the Prevailing Wage Act to meet

Smith v. City of Newark

128 N.J. Super. 417 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 1974

the New Jersey Constitution (1947) in that it constitutes “special” legislation: creating, increasing or decreasing the emoluments, term or tenure rights of public officers or employees; granting an exclusive privilege, immunity … The challenged provisions of the new legislation which accord a preference to a resident over an equally qualified nonresident do not contravene the constitutional mandate of appointments and promotions according to merit

Block 268, LLC v. City of Hoboken Rent Leveling and Stabilization Bd.

401 N.J. Super. 563 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2008

In the present case, Block 268's buildings qualify as "multiple dwellings" and were constructed after the statute's effective date. Therefore, the buildings qualify for exemption from rent control. … In the event it is established that the initial period of amortization is less than thirty years, the order may be amended accordingly.

McGovern v. Hoffman

73 N.J. Super. 200 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 1962

At that hearing testimony was adduced through several witnesses, which established that on a number of specified dates between October 31, 1960 and November 17, 1960 Eugene J. … Clearly, the right to impose a condition on a license which would forestall the creation of ox the resumption of such a practice inhered in the statutory powers of the Director heretofore noted.

SALVATORE SALSA VS. KATHERINE SALSA (FM-12-0268-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 2021

The standard of living established during the marriage or civil union; e. … A spouse who asserts an asset is "immune" from equitable distribution bears the burden of establishing such immunity. Ibid.; Dotsko v. Dotsko, 244 N.J. Super. 668, 676 (App.

ELENA MERCADO VS. DONNA L. KRIMMEL (L-0230-17, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 16, 2021

Defendants asserted on their motion that plaintiff had not established prima facie proof of negligence, and that they were entitled to weather immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:4-7 in any event. … Specifically, the judge found the motion record "clearly delineate[d] the hazardous conditions on the road at the time the accident occurred," that the driver was operating the bus "under the purview" of New Jersey Transit

Zamboni v. Stamler

199 N.J. Super. 378 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1985

Super. 90 (App.Div. 1971), is clearly misplaced. … As we expressly pointed out in Bergen County, supra at 95, "[t]he prosecutor had the power ... to appoint to the unclassified position of county investigator any qualified individuals, including members of the Bergen county

In re Paterson Counseling Center, Inc.

237 N.J. Super. 240 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1989

Consequently, the Department encouraged its employees who were involved in conducting drug treatment programs to establish private non-profit corporations to perform this responsibility. … Fourth, as indicated by the discussion in section I of this opinion, the directive was not “expressly provided by or clearly and obviously inferable from” the Act.

Marcella Schembari v. St. Michael's the Archangel Roman Catholic Church

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 21, 2025

Empathizing with Schembari's injury, the judge stated "the church [defendants] violated no duty and the expert clearly did not provide a basis for me to conclude that was even in the game. … V Finally, we address the issue of charitable immunity.

Roach v. TRW, INC.

320 N.J. Super. 558 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1999

One of the goals of the reorganization was to "reduce staff with more clearly defined roles." … Abbamont, Barratt and Mehlman clearly involved complaints regarding actions of the employer.

Mahon v. Reilly's Radio Cabs, Inc.

212 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1986

Clearly, the issues raised on this appeal do not relate to the jurisdiction of the trial court or the public interest. See, e.g., Naftal v. Township Committee of Eastampton, 123 N.J. Super. 450, 452 (App.Div. 1973). … While this rule is qualified by the exception permitting original review by an appellate tribunal of errors which adversely affect the substantial rights of parties and have a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result

State v. Orlando

269 N.J. Super. 116 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 1993

We are also satisfied, contrary to defendant's argument, that the record clearly and convincingly established that the victim's in-court identification of defendant was based on the victim's own observations at the time of … Here, defendant failed to establish that he requested the prosecutor to produce the transcripts of Selig's plea hearing.

Monmouth Medical Center v. State

158 N.J. Super. 241 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1978

The federal statute requires participating states to provide qualified individuals with financial assistance in five general categories of medical treatment (including inpatient *248 hospital services). 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1396a … The federal concept of medical necessity is found most clearly defined in those cases dealing with Medicare legislation. *253 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395 et seq.

Carroll v. Cobb

139 N.J. Super. 439 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1976

think that that has been established satisfactorily to me. … All this was in violation of the legal principles approvingly expressed in this opinion and clearly called for broad judicial relief.