Alan B. Handler

This case concerns the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services' petition to terminate the parental rights of L.R., the biological father of two children (C.H. and R.H.), after their mother died and the children had been placed in foster care due to her substance abuse and neglect. The Supreme Court addressed whether DYFS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children's best interests under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), including whether the children were harmed by their parents and whether DYFS made diligent efforts to reunite L.R. with the children, while also considering the related abandonment standard under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(d). The trial court had terminated L.R.'s rights based on abandonment findings, expert testimony about the children's bonds with foster parents and L.R.'s inability to care for them, and L.R.'s inconsistent efforts to assume custody despite expressing interest. The Court ultimately affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings on unresolved issues such as bonding evaluations.

family law

This case involved the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services seeking to terminate the parental rights of B.A.S., the biological mother of K.H.O., so that the child's foster parents could adopt her. K.H.O. was born in 1993 with heroin withdrawal and other health issues stemming from her mother's prenatal drug use, after which the mother repeatedly failed drug treatment programs and remained unable to provide care. The trial court and Supreme Court applied the best-interests-of-the-child standard under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), finding that the initial harm from prenatal exposure, the mother's continuing inability to care for the child, and the child's strong bond with her long-term foster family justified termination of parental rights to allow adoption. The court weighed the harm of severing biological ties against the benefits of a stable adoptive placement and concluded that termination was warranted.

family law

This case consolidated personal injury claims by plaintiff Robert Green arising from two separate motor vehicle accidents in 1991 and 1994, seeking damages from insurers and other drivers for alleged chronic injuries. At trial, the court allowed defendants to introduce evidence of the plaintiff's racist statements from his deposition testimony to impeach his credibility on cross-examination. The jury returned a no-cause verdict against the plaintiff, which the Appellate Division affirmed, and the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the matter due to a dissent regarding the admissibility of the bias evidence. The Court analyzed whether the evidence was relevant for impeachment and whether its probative value was substantially outweighed by undue prejudice under N.J.R.E. 403, distinguishing it from cases where bias is central to the claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the death of a patient from an air embolism caused by the incorrect connection of a hysteroscope during a diagnostic procedure at St. Barnabas Medical Center, leading to a medical malpractice suit against the doctor, nurses, hospital, and equipment manufacturer. The court applied the Anderson v. Somberg doctrine to shift the burden of proof to the defendants to demonstrate their non-culpability, as the injury resulted from negligence by at least one of them, and determined that the common knowledge doctrine allowed the jury to find negligence without expert testimony on professional standards. The trial court had instructed the jury accordingly, resulting in a verdict apportioning liability among the doctor, nurses, and hospital, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment, remanding for entry of the verdict.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In this case, the Township of Pennsauken enforced its sign ordinance against an adult entertainment business owner who installed large illuminated transparency displays inside his stores but visible from the street, leading to convictions and substantial fines for exceeding size and number limits and failing to obtain permits. The municipal court and Law Division upheld the convictions, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that interior displays were not "signs" under the ordinance. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the ordinance's broad definition of signs as any device for visual communication or display applied to the interior transparencies because they were visible from outside and served an advertising purpose. The Court further concluded that the ordinance's restrictions on commercial speech were reasonable and did not violate the First Amendment, as they advanced legitimate interests in aesthetics, traffic safety, and visual compatibility while imposing valid fines for ongoing violations.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycriminal law

In Norris v. Borough of Leonia, a pedestrian sued the Borough after sustaining injuries when a curb collapsed under her foot, claiming the municipality negligently maintained the curb and created a dangerous condition under New Jersey's Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Borough based on common-law immunity for sidewalk and curb deterioration plus statutory immunities and lack of proof of a dangerous condition or notice, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that municipalities no longer enjoy common-law immunity for the natural wear and tear of curbs and sidewalks, and that claims for dangerous conditions of public property are governed by the liability standards of the Tort Claims Act rather than historical immunities. The Court reasoned that the Act expressly makes public-entity liability subject to the same rules as private persons and that legislative policy allowing recovery for palpably unreasonable conditions displaces prior municipal protections, remanding the case for trial on whether the curb was a dangerous condition of which the Borough had actual or constructive notice.

torts & liabilityprocedure