Case law

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL HERBST (6229, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 24, 2020

In that opinion, the court clearly reviewed and considered the A-4147-18T1 4 municipal court record, noted … "Trial judges are vested with the authority to propound questions to qualify a witness's testimony and to elicit facts on their own initiative and within their sound discretion." State v. Medina, 349 N.J.

State of New Jersey v. Mayra J. Gavilanez-Alectus

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2025

N.J.R.E. 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … It is well established that an expert witness may not offer an opinion as to the defendant's guilt. State v. Cain, 224 N.J. 410, 429 (2016).

DCPP VS. R.C. AND D.S., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF RA.C. (FG-09-0122-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 2019

The harm may be established by "a delay in establishing a stable and permanent home[.]" DMH, 161 N.J. at 383. "A parent's withdrawal of . . . … Generally, to prove the fourth prong, the Division "should offer testimony of a well[-]qualified expert who has had full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation of the child's relationship

Toll Bros., Inc. v. BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS

388 N.J. Super. 103 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 18, 2006

In the mid-1980's, defendant Whitesell established with three others the Moorestown Foursome. … The agreement more clearly defined plaintiff's obligations under the prior approvals that had been given to Foursome.

Dcpp v. J v. and A.A., in the Matter of W.A.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 5, 2024

This evidence may come in the form of "medical and hospital records" or testimony of "health care providers, caregivers, or qualified experts." … Nonetheless, an appellate court will reverse an error not brought to the attention of the trial court if "the appellant shows . . . it was 'plain error,' that is, 'error clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'"

State of New Jersey v. M.G.R.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 14, 2026

These experts evaluated defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offenses and agreed that defendant "qualifies for a diagnosis of schizophrenia." … The evidence clearly showed there was a bloody knife which had both defendant and D.D.'s DNA on it.

RIAD KABAKIBI VS. RAMESH SARVA, C.P.A. (L-9757-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 2019

Our review of "the findings and conclusions of a trial court following a bench trial are well-established." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Northfield Med. Ctr., P.C., 228 N.J. 596, 619 (2017). … Soled testified the fact that the absence of reported salary for a medical specialist such as Riad on the returns "seems on its face to be fundamentally flawed" and that "there seems to be no bridge to be able to make qualified

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GREGORY J. HERBERT (15-01-0065, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 2020

We are guided by well-established legal principles. … An inoperable BB gun also qualifies as a firearm under the statute. State v. Austin, 335 N.J.

Hef Ventures, LLC v. Township of Hanover Zoning Board of Adjustment

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 2026

Pertinent here, Township of Hanover, N.J., Code § 166-174 establishes the regulations applicable to the R-10 zone. … It concluded plaintiff had established a prima facie case pursuant to each statute and, "[b]ecause the Board failed to establish a cognizable nondiscriminatory basis for the interpretation, its interpretation of the Zoning

IN THE MATTER OF THE BOARD'S REVIEW OF THE APPLICABILITY AND CALCULATION OF A CONSOLIDATED TAX ADJUSTMENT (NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 18, 2017

Here, all the Metromedia factors clearly favor rulemaking. … Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan, 369 N.J. Super. 2, 43 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 182 N.J. 141 (2004)).

SHARAD YAGNIK VS. PREMIUM OUTLET PARTNERS, LP (L-2601-18, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 2021

That deadline is subject, however, to the long established AOM exceptions for (1) substantial compliance or (2) extraordinary circumstances. … Harper, 229 N.J. 228, 237 (2017) (observing that if the law's plain language "clearly reveals the Legislature's intent, the inquiry is over").

Cheryl Kress v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 2024

"[H]ad the facts been made known earlier . . . in [her] tenure . . . she might well have litigated her claims earlier, clearly dispelling any presumption that her salary increases were in anticipation of retirement." … a member to file A-3130-22 8  for retirement benefits to which they would not otherwise have qualified

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT E. NOYES VS. RICHARD M. MORANO (L-0179-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 2019

and unmistakably established,'" ibid. … Moreover, "[t]o qualify as a consumer transaction . . . the challenged services generally must be of the type sold to the general public." Finderne Mgmt. Co., v. Barrett, 402 N.J. Super. 546, 570 (App.

J.A.M. VS. S.J.G. (FM-10-0286-19, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 2021

instead ordered A-0262-20 2 defendant to divide the funds "as soon as it becomes practicable for the [qualified … If consistent with the law, such an award will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or the result of whim or caprice." Jacoby v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KYLE P. BROWN (16-10-1680, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 2020

There is no evidence of legislative intent to exclude the factual scenario in this case – a car with gasoline in its tank set on fire and bursting into a fireball – from qualifying as an explosion. … A-3588-17T4 21  It is well-settled that a videotape "qualifies as a writing[ ]" under N.J.R.E. 801(e) and must be "properly authenticated" before being admitted.

State of New Jersey v. A.V.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2025

Plain errors are those "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. … "[T]o qualify as fresh-complaint evidence, the victim's statement must have been made spontaneously and voluntarily, within a reasonable time after the alleged assault, to a person the victim would ordinarily turn to for

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EMMANUEL PIERREVIL (09-01-0262, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 20, 2022

The investigator clearly conveyed the purpose of the interview was to A-4243-19 3 determine whether the … In the present matter, the motion judge found defendant failed to establish the first and third Carter prongs. We agree.

DCPP VS. G.A., A.A., AND E.M., IN THE MATTER OF L.M., EZ.M., A.M., AND J.M. (FN-13-0250-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 2018

However, deference in such circumstances should still be accorded unless it is determined that the trial judge's findings were clearly mistaken. … The record clearly shows that E.M. harmed Emory through excessive corporal punishment on one or more occasions. First, Dr.

DEP v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

393 N.J. Super. 388 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 2007

In other words, "loss of use" is a means of measuring the reduction of services provided by a polluted natural resource and establishing a value for its replacement. … Clearly, it is not proper statutory construction to reach a result that would render a provision completely meaningless. See, e.g., Gabin v. Skyline Cabana Club, 54 N.J. 550, 555 , 258 A. 2d 6 (1969).

Sandra Lema v. the Borough of Garwood

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 2025

This is clearly in violation of the spirit of the condition. … Whether or not [plaintiffs] were aware of [Vinegra's] decision prior to the time of the meeting in the summer of 2019, they clearly were aware of it by then.