Case law

N.R.G. v. A.R.C.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2024

"[C]ommunications only ha[ve] to 'cause annoyance or alarm' to qualify as harassment." State v. Higginbotham, 257 N.J. 260, 287 (2024) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a)). … The trial judge clearly found plaintiff credible, and we have no reason to find otherwise. The better course would have been for the judge to address each of the factors of N.J.S.A. 2C:25- 29(a).

Township of Pemberton v. Berardi

378 N.J. Super. 430 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 16, 2005

Pemberton had presented the Berardis with an offer for the property, accompanied by a complete copy of an appraisal made by a qualified real estate appraiser by regular and certified mail. … [Ibid, (citation omitted)(emphasis added).] 111 We hold that the word “may” used in N.J.S.A. 20:3-25 is mandatory and not permissive, as evidenced by its legislative history and by the application of well-established principles

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAPHAEL E. GARLAND (19-08-2261, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 2022

It also is clearly established, however, that "trial courts 'shall not charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis for a verdict convicting the defendant of the included offense … Relatedly, a trial court's exercise of discretion that is in line with sentencing principles "should be immune from second-guessing." State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 612 (2010).

Matter of DK

204 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 1985

The lack of a technically qualified plaintiff cannot prevent this court from acting in the interest of an incompetent. … The testimony received clearly supports the conclusion that D.K. is ill and cannot manage her affairs. That was the unanimous conclusion of the medical experts.

JOSE TORRES VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM (POICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2018

The Board found Torres was qualified for ordinary disability benefits, but was not qualified for accidental disability benefits because his disability was not the direct result of the traumatic event. … Therefore, the "exacting standard of medical causation" established in Gelba governs. 83 N.J. at 185.

R.A.D. v. C.D.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 2025

Therefore, the trial court's findings failed to establish that defendant had the purpose to harass, alarm, or seriously annoy, and therefore, the FRO should be reversed and vacated. … Defendant asserts the court's "requirement [to hire a private investigator] infringes on a parties right to gather evidence required to establish a prima facie case as clarified by [Cardali v.

State of New Jersey v. R.B.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 23, 2024

In doing so, the court clearly credited the testimony of J.B. and the officers and found, on the day of each incident, defendant struck J.B. and did not have consent to do so. The court also found R.B.' … s intoxication during both incidents did not qualify as a defense, and thus found R.B. guilty on both charges after concluding she "purposely or knowingly caused bodily injury to another person."

DAVID F. CALABOTTA VS. PHIBRO ANIMAL HEALTH CORPORATION (L-1979-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

460 N.J. Super. 38 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2019

It is well established that the NJLAD should be "liberally construed 'in order to advance its beneficial purposes.'" Smith, 225 N.J. at 390 (quoting Nini, 202 N.J. at 115). … There is simply no "statutory directive" here qualifying under section 6(1). 12 After conducting that detailed analysis, the Court concluded in In re Accutane that the NJPLA applied to all 532 cases before it involving

J.B. v. New Jersey State Parole Board

433 N.J. Super. 327 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 26, 2013

Given these special characteristics of sex offenders, the Legislature established CSL in 1994 as part of the Violent Predator Incapacitation Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. … Cir. 2012) (upholding a qualified ban on the defendant's ability to access the Internet after conviction for sex crimes); United States v.

Westfield Motor Sales Co. v. Town of Westfield

129 N.J. Super. 528 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 1974

It therefore concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish unique or exceptional conditions constituting a hardship. … A court can concern itself only with an abuse of delegated legislative power, and may set aside the legislative judgment only if arbitrariness clearly appears. [ 42 N.J. at 8 ] We are not faced with any claim on the part

In the Matter of Registrant P.C.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 11, 2026

Finally, the court held subsection (f) did not violate the doctrine of fundamental fairness because the Legislature "clearly intended" to procedurally bar sex offenders who may establish they are not a danger to the community … First, it clearly impacts litigants. The issues raised here could have, and certainly should have, been resolved in the first appeal.

Maticka v. City of Atlantic City

216 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1987

In brief, the emergency assistance program in this state derives from federal legislation establishing the matching AFDC program. 42 U.S.C.A. § 606 . … Clearly, the concept of emergency assistance was to provide a bridge over the abyss of temporary homelessness.

ALTON NICHOLS VS. DUKE LINDEN, LLC VS. CARUSO LANDSCAPING (L-0971-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 2021

Plaintiff, while maintaining the two reports of his treating doctor "clearly allocate the cause of the need for his knee replacement . . . to the underlying incident such that no supplemental report should have been required … Div. 2003), it will not serve to relieve a plaintiff of establishing an element of his prima facie case necessary to stave off summary judgment dismissing his complaint.

GREGORY R. DUKE, ETC. VS. ALL AMERICAN FORD, INC. NICOLE BARBARINO, ETC. VS. PARAMUS FORD, INC. EDWARD M. GREENBERG VS. MAHWAH SALES AND SERVICE, INC. MARK WALTERS, ETC. VS. DREAM CARS NATIONAL, LLC (L-3010-15, L-2856-15, L-6105-15 AND L-9571-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 2018

When the Legislature enacted the TCCWNA in 1981, it "did not recognize any new consumer rights but merely imposed an obligation on sellers to acknowledge clearly established consumer rights and provided remedies for posting … Does a violation of the Furniture Delivery Regulations alone constitute a violation of a clearly established right or responsibility of the seller under the TCCWNA and thus provides

Ejk Realty LLC v. Akr Contracting Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 2024

In establishing negligence, a plaintiff is generally "not required to establish the applicable standard of care." Davis, 219 N.J. at 406. … Kloss posits his experience qualifies him as an expert.

PATERSON POLICE PBA LOCAL NO. 1 VS. CITY OF PATERSON (C-000120-19, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 2021

The Plan Design Committee establishes the components of the SHBP's overall plan designs, while the SHB Commission authorizes the plan's contracts with various insurance carriers. … The Act clearly mandates that to participate in the SHBP, an employer is required to enroll all eligible employees into the SHBP, without exception.

Nadezdha Sherman v. Howard Sherman

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 2024

Instead, the court permitted counsel to establish his case-in-chief through direct examination of plaintiff. … Finally, there was no evidence or testimony establishing plaintiff received an enforceable promise of support from another person.

Marshall Williams v. Estate of Evelyn L. Williams

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 2024

whether the person that's speaking on behalf of [defendant] qualifies to speak." … Plaintiff's counsel, through colloquy with plaintiff, established jurisdiction of the court, proper venue and the cause of action for divorce based on irreconcilable differences.

Eleuteri v. Richman

47 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 9, 1957

forthcoming criminal trials of the evidence discovered in the course of the searches, but that the decided cases of our courts have repeatedly held that, notwithstanding the illegality of a search, the evidence found is immune … In its passing reference to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure the court was clearly assuming the continued subsistence of a substantive right on the part of the State to use against the criminal defendant

State of New Jersey v. Ahjhir K. Jones

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 2025

We accordingly give "no deference to the trial court's 'interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts.'" State v. Maurer, 438 N.J. Super. 402, 411 (App. … First, the judge correctly found that to qualify as a "pending charge" under subsection (a)(5), the firearms charge must still be pending at the time defendant seeks admission into Recovery Court.