Case law

DCPP VS. G.P., IN THE MATTER OF T.P. (FN-16-0128-16, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2019

Medesa Espana, who qualified as an expert in pediatric emergency medicine and child abuse and neglect; Passaic County Prosecutor's Office (PCPO) Detective Tabitha Thompson, who interviewed defendant; and Division caseworker … Div. 2002), we held that a stipulation must be definite and certain in its terms and the consent of the parties to be bound by it must be clearly established.

State v. J.T.

455 N.J. Super. 176 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2018

Simring gave this testimony, this colossal error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. … This "spend down" or partial depletion of the family's assets in order to qualify for Medicaid assistance was based on a valuation of the family's assets as being approximately $190,000.

PETER DALEDDA VS. LORETTA GUARDINO(FM-02-1937-10, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 17, 2017

A reduced income may qualify as "changed circumstances." Ibid. … at 157 (explaining a court should hold a plenary hearing if "a party clearly demonstrate[s] the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact").

State of New Jersey v. Ebenezer Byrd, Jerry J. Spraulding, and Gregory A. Jean-Baptiste

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 2024

Here, Kavanaugh was qualified as an expert in "the field of crime scene processing" and "fingerprinting" analysis. Her qualifications were not challenged at trial or now on appeal. … Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), our Supreme Court established guidelines for sentencing courts imposing consecutive sentences for multiple offenses pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(a).

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLTON L. BAILEY(14-10-1112, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 2017

However, at the close of the State's case, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal, R. 3:18-1, and amended the indictment accordingly because the State failed to establish any connection between … The trial court qualified Barcalow, an inmate at a different facility, as an expert on tattooing in jail.2 He testified that "a screw[,]" like the one seized from defendant's sock, could be used for tattooing.

Feuer v. Merck & Co.

455 N.J. Super. 69 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2018

See N.J.S.A. 14A:3-6.5(3) ("If a derivative proceeding is commenced after a determination has been made rejecting a demand by a shareholder, the complaint shall allege with particularity facts establishing that a majority … Pa. 2003) ("[Pennsylvania, Georgia and Kentucky] now ha[ve] a statutory scheme that clearly abrogates any such hypothesized common law right."); Caspary v. La. Land & Exploration Co. , 560 F.Supp. 855 , 857 (D.

In re Team Academy Charter Sch.

459 N.J. Super. 111 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 2019

Newark's charter schools are party to a "Compact" 4 agreeing to serve "all students in the city, especially the highest need students requiring special education services, students who are [ELL], students who qualify for … the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co.

264 N.J. Super. 460 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1993

In 1975, ARMS advised O-I of certain tax and insurance management benefits of establishing a captive insurer. … We do not suggest that this type of litigation is immune from summary judgment. However, the right to such disposition ought to appear so clearly as to leave no room for controversy. Ruvolo v. American Cas.

WILLIAM J. ENGELHARDT, JR. VS. DIANA ENGELHARDT (FM-15-0658-04, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 2020

A-1183-18T3 6 name by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if required." … So, in essence, [husband] didn’t meet [his] burden in that regard to establish that $26,000 should be the minimum.

Dcpp v. A.N.B. and H.D.W., in the Matter of the Guardianship of M.D.W. and A.W.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 2024

Over objection by Harry's counsel, the judge ruled the evaluation was admissible for the limited purpose of establishing what recommendations Dr. … Traina qualifies as a professional consultant and his evaluation was admissible under Rule 5:12-4(d). In his reply brief, Harry avers that even if Rule 5:12-4(d) is applicable, Dr.

Dcpp v. A.F., in the Matter of the Guardianship of A.Z., Jr.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 2025

Father argues DCPP did not establish prongs three and four of the statutory test. … A-1646-24 21  Generally, to prove the fourth prong, DCPP "should offer testimony of a well[-]qualified expert who has had full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective

Kimberly Leftwich v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 2024

We review this appeal guided by well-established standards. … The ALJ reasoned that "[t]he work incident could not be the substantial cause where, as here, objective findings in the MRIs and x-rays clearly demonstrated a significant pre-existing degenerative condition."

DAVID KALUCKI VS. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 15, 2017

In analyzing the testimony of the medical experts, the Court rejects the opinion of [claimant's expert] as he is clearly less qualified than respondent's expert[.] . . . … Apart from these findings as to parts of the body germane to the present appeal, the judge concluded that claimant had separately established a one-percent increase in occupationally- induced hearing loss

In the Matter of P.O. Stephen McGee, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2024

NJT Policy 3.25A established the procedures for NJT's drug and alcohol- free workplace program in accordance with the regulations and guidelines established by the United States DOT and FTA. See NJT Policy 3.25A § I. … Again, NJT Policy 3.25A clearly incorporates the federal definition of marijuana.

State of New Jersey v. Christian D. Perez

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 2024

"Ignorance of the law and rules of court does not qualify as excusable neglect," State v. Merola, 365 N.J. Super. 203, 218 (Law. Div. 2002) (citing Murray, 162 N.J. at 246); see also State v. Brown, 455 N.J. … Defendant failed to assert any explanation to establish excusable neglect under Rule 7:10-2(b)(2).

Khan v. Singh

397 N.J. Super. 184 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 2007

The defendant's trial testimony "clearly prejudiced" the plaintiff. Ibid. The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial. Id. at 376 , 771 A. 2d 1153 . … In fact, when the court qualified Dr. Weisband as an expert, it observed that he "had opportunity to research and . . . [investigate] and educate himself with respect to [the] procedures." Dr.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GERARD E. MAZZARA (6218, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 2021

We were also unpersuaded by the defendant's due process claim, finding "[t]he Constitution does not require us to treat sentencing as a game in which a misplay by a judge means immunity for an offender." Ibid. … The Court's holding established a "constitutional limit" under our State Constitution: a "defendant may not suffer an increased period of incarceration as a result of a" violation of the principles established in Rodriguez

Dawn Latshaw v. Lakewood Township Police Department

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 25, 2024

Here, Latshaw's injury, which occurred on her drive back to the police station from a restaurant, clearly took place away from the premises of her workplace. … A-3702-21 9 Such personal errands simply do not qualify under the paid travel time rule.

DCPP VS. S.B., M.H., AND H.A., IN THE MATTER OF C.A., CH.A., K.A., R.A., AND M.B. (FN-07-0284-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 2018

Accordingly, we will only overturn the judge's findings if they "went so wide of the mark that the judge was clearly mistaken." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007). … We discern no abuse in the trial court's discretion in qualifying Rimli as an expert.

State of New Jersey v. Otway K. Garland

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 10, 2025

Defendant's hand tattoos were clearly visible as he removed cash from the registers and, at one point, he looked up providing a clear image of his face and facial tattoos. … A-1589-24 8 27, to establish defendant's identity in connection with the October 23 and 25 burglaries.