Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
1.19s
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN DEROSA (10-06-1170, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 2019
Defendant urges us, as a matter of State constitutional interpretation, to dispense with the requirement, established in Arizona v. … Under the familiar two-prong standard established in Strickland v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Marcus O. Morrisey
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 23, 2025
On the first day of jury selection, the judge pre-qualified the prospective jurors and began more substantive questioning. Prospective juror thirteen was pre-qualified to serve as a possible juror. … Throughout the trial, the identity of the second assailant was clearly disputed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 2026
Gomberg's report qualify as an adoptive admission under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(2) and could be used against plaintiff. IV. … Plaintiff maintains discovery and a plenary hearing are required because the unsuccessful mediation establishes material factual disputes exist.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 2022
Div. 2013) (holding that a parent's "continued drug use, lack of appropriate housing, and failure to attend treatment, clearly posed a risk to the children" and satisfied prong one of the best interests test). … "[T]o satisfy the fourth prong, the State 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 with both
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Cowan Rainey
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 20, 2026
It explained that "[t]he state's inability to show the video recording due to temporary technical difficulties does not qualify the DVD as being 'lost or destroyed' within the meaning of the statute," and "the contents … Clearly, Pedone's testimony included opinions and inferences subject to N.J.R.E. 701. However, the State failed to satisfy the Rule's requirements.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AHMAD H. HUSEIN (18-05-0319, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 8, 2022
Here, based on the risk of re-offense, defendant's extensive prior criminal record that potentially qualified him as a "persistent offender," and the heightened need for deterrence, the judge found aggravating factors three … The judge found no mitigating factors and determined "the aggravating factors clearly outweigh[ed] the mitigating."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJD JAMES CONSTRUCTION, LLC VS. PDP LANDSCAPING, LLC (L-2404-16, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 18, 2020
It would just stretch beyond all credibility a view that . . . inferentially . . . plaintiff would have to wait for the unpaid balance from Warfel to [PDP] in order to qualify for payment … And, clearly, giving Warfel releases of liens of which at least $85,000 is represented by work done at that juncture, acknowledged work done by . . . plaintiff is just unconscionable.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICHARD CARRERA (17-04-0908, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 2019
The proponent of the technique has the burden to "clearly establish" general acceptance, State v. … App. 2017) (noting trial court found the State failed to establish the FBI agent's drive tests were generally accepted in the relevant community).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL M. WINTERS(13-09-2933, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2017
This establishment was not insolated; there were men standing outside in the parking lot when defendant parked by the gas pumps. … Defendant also contends the court double-counted the convictions that qualifies him for this discretionary extended term. Not so.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished459 N.J. Super. 246 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 2019
The incident was investigated and established as to the father's neglect, but the Division did not remove the children at that time. … We certainly recognize the well-established objective of achieving the children's permanency.
Cited 49 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. L.F.S. (11-05-0514, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 2020
At trial, the State presented the testimony of Anthony Vincent D'Urso, Psy.D., who was qualified as an expert in behavioral science and child sexual abuse. Dr. … Defendant clearly could have raised this claim on direct appeal. Indeed, as we noted in our unpublished opinion, defendant argued that it was "plain error for the trial judge to admit Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSavannah Abdelmalak v. Prime Healthcare Services-St. Mary's Passaic, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2025
In medical negligence actions, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41 requires the AOM affiant to "be equivalently-qualified to the defendant" physician. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011) (quoting Ryan v. … "To show extraordinary circumstances, it is unnecessary to establish that an opponent acted in bad faith or deliberately misled a plaintiff." Yagnik, 467 N.J. Super. at 116.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJD JAMES CONSTRUCTION, LLC VS. PDP LANDSCAPING, LLC (L-2404-16, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 18, 2020
It would just stretch beyond all credibility a view that . . . inferentially . . . plaintiff would have to wait for the unpaid balance from Warfel to [PDP] in order to qualify for payment … And, clearly, giving Warfel releases of liens of which at least $85,000 is represented by work done at that juncture, acknowledged work done by . . . plaintiff is just unconscionable.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCOMPREHENSIVE NEUROSURGICAL, P.C. v. THE VALLEY HOSPITAL (L-6794-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 2022
Thus, we will not reverse a jury verdict "unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law." R. 2:10-1. … The judge found that Clancy was "qualified as a [Certified 7 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HOWARD L. DUNNS (13-09-2433, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2018
The prejudice clearly outweighed the negligible, if not nonexistent, probative value of the evidence. … N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.67(a), which allows a defendant's entry into a parole agreement reducing the primary parole eligibility date, is qualified by N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.52.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. B.C.S. (13-10-1403, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 2019
When Detective Hann interviewed the six-year-old girl, the detective established a rapport and then had the child identify the male and female anatomy. … He is not a qualified expert in order to give that opinion. .... [Prosecutor]: Judge, does he have to be a qualified - - a qualified expert in what, first, I might ask.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 2017
The administrative determination will stand unless it is clearly demonstrated to be arbitrary or capricious.'" … The Association argues more stringent requirements can only be established through collective negotiations.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSavannah Abdelmalak v. Prime Healthcare Services-St. Mary's Passaic, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2025
In medical negligence actions, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41 requires the AOM affiant to "be equivalently-qualified to the defendant" physician. Buck v. Henry, 207 N.J. 377, 389 (2011) (quoting Ryan v. … "To show extraordinary circumstances, it is unnecessary to establish that an opponent acted in bad faith or deliberately misled a plaintiff." Yagnik, 467 N.J. Super. at 116.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 2024
it qualified as an "amusement park" under the Amusement Games Licensing Law, N.J.S.A. 5:8-100 to -103, and specifically the statutory requirement it provide "food and merchandise concessions in permanent structures." … It also maintains it clearly explained to appellant "prepacked food dispensed from a vending machine is not a food concession" under the statutory language. II.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTOWNSHIP OF MANALAPAN VS. ANTHONY GENTILE (L-3821-10, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 2019
As the trial court found, the Township did not dispute that Phillips was qualified to render an expert opinion on planning. … However, "not every impairment in property value establishes a taking," Dock St. Seafood, 427 N.J.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna