Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.51s
State of New Jersey v. Kelvin Briggs
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2025
Our inquiry is to determine whether the alleged error was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result . . . ." R. 2:10-2. … In addition, the evidence establishing defendant's guilt was strong.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Zakeem D. Brown
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 28, 2023
Importantly for purposes of this appeal, the standard for establishing a valid waiver of Miranda rights is heightened when juveniles are subjected to custodial interrogation. … That circumstance qualifies as an exception to Presha's bright-line rule concerning interrogations of juveniles under the age of fourteen.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMARLENE MORGAN VS. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC. (L-4987-13, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2017
In her answer, plaintiff objected to the question on the ground that it asked for a legal or medical opinion, which she was not qualified to provide. … We conclude the judge's instructions clearly informed the jury that plaintiff could not recover damages unless she proved that she sustained a permanent injury that was proximately caused by the subject auto accident.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JONATHAN PEREZ (11-12-2992, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 26, 2018
Mack opined defendant: is clearly feigning incompetency to stand trial and that [defendant] does actually understand the criminal justice system, is capable of rationally understanding … Mack further concluded defendant "qualifies for the DSM-5 diagnosis of Malingering (DSM-5 Z76.5)."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARIO GAYLES (16-02-0637, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 2020
On the other hand, to qualify as newly discovered evidence entitling a party to a new trial, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or … Here, defendant failed to establish that the evidence constitutes either exculpatory or newly discovered evidence to meet either standard.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTANISLAV ROYZENSHTEYN VS. PRASHANT PATHAK (C-000045-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2020
Lastly, plaintiff argue it was error to order them to produce all the communications, because some were clearly privileged. "We 'normally defer to a trial court's disposition of discovery matters . . . … possess all rights, privileges, powers, immunities . . . of each of the merging or A-1810-19T2 21 consolidating
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichael Caruso v. Borough of Haddonfield
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2024
"We owe no deference to conclusions of law that flow from established facts." Crisitello, 255 N.J. at 218. … Rule 4:46-2 statements—that even if plaintiff "had been given a higher score, at best it puts him in the running to be considered but it doesn't guarantee appointment as lieutenant," and Sergeant Holloway was otherwise qualified
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLUZI BARTSCH VS. IRMA LAGE (L-5583-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2019
[T]o establish permanency you have to have an expert who['s] testifying within a reasonable degree of medical probability. … Burt's testimony, in contrast, was less certain, as he did not clearly convey a confidence to a degree of probability. When asked if the damage was permanent, Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 2021
D., was qualified without objection as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology with a special focus in bonding and parenting capacity evaluations. … Clearly, defendants disagree with Dr. Lee's unfavorable opinions. However, defendants' disagreement with Dr. Lee's conclusions does not render them inadmissible net opinions. See Townsend v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Corey J. Barber
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 2024
Officer Abrusci testified he has been certified as a DRE in New Jersey for more than two decades and has been qualified as a DRE in "at least [twenty] different courts." … Bey, 112 N.J. 45, 68 n.13 (1988) (holding "[t]he initiation of a general discussion about the victim clearly satisfies" the Innis standard).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBOGUSLAW KRZAK VS. JOSEPH FASO (L-1050-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2019
Fotiou was qualified as an expert in the field of chiropractic medicine, and he, like Dr. Barr, did not review any of plaintiff's medical records predating the accident. … support the A-2588-17T1 14 finding, obvious overlooking or under-valuation of crucial evidence, [or] a clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDaniel Cohen v. Weg & Myers, Pc
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2025
"If sufficiently established, evidence of a habit or routine practice may be utilized to infer that conduct on a specific occasion conformed to such evidence." … The error is only reversible if it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Willner, 235 N.J. at 79 (quoting R. 2:10-2).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedROBERT TORRES VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 18, 2019
Based on these findings, he concluded "the arthritis clearly was not caused from [the accident] but was a preexisting condition." … "Essentially, a qualified member who is permanently disabled for any reason will qualify for ordinary disability." Patterson, 194 N.J. at 42.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKYHEEM DAVIS VS. TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE (L-3221-15, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 2019
He was given a two-day suspension, a thirty-day suspension for eligibility for off-duty details, and was required to review the "policies on safe operation of police vehicles with a qualified Emergency Vehicle Operator … The court's statements that plaintiff never drove through a stop sign is clearly erroneous, as evidenced by the first minute of the MVR footage.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUIS DELCARMEN (16-02-0150, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 2022
He testified he did not ask for anything from the prosecutor's office in return for the testimony aside from immunity. … "[T]hat principle resonates most clearly in cases in which a perpetrator intentionally targets multiple victims (e.g., a double murder or robbery) . . . ." Id. at 429.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPMG NEW JERSEY II, LLC VS. 133 COLONIA, LLC (L-3903-16, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 2019
As such, the record clearly established that Colonia satisfied the first of the negative criteria under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 based on an enhanced quality of proofs. … McDonough's testimony established the necessity for the requested "c" variances, which the Board found to be credible.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 2017
Another ordinance established a table of organization for the County police for the "Post-Realignment Period." … In reaching that conclusion, the Court explained: [T]he CBA clearly conferred that broadly stated power to interpret this CBA on the arbitrators.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 2025
Moreover, as the court found, the court was "not qualified to render an opinion on the fair market value of a multi-million dollar condominium unit in the heart of New York City in 2017." … However, "[t]his rule clearly provides no authority for the trial court's reconsideration of its own orders and judgments." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1 on R.1:13-1 (2025).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 2022
Lazu was about forty feet away from the "target location," but could see clearly because of a streetlight and porchlights on neighboring houses. … We concluded the NCIC information was improperly admitted, the State having failed to establish the criteria we cited above. Id. at 298.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Andrew Pena
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 7, 2025
But, "[i]f the facts raise the question [of] whether the crime was completed," Alternative II directs the jury to "consider whether an attempt to commit the crime has been established." Id. at 3. … The judge omitted the portions defining "use of force" and "threat of force" and listing the qualifying crimes but retained the portion defining "official proceeding."
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna