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

This medical malpractice case arose from a laparoscopic tubal ligation in which the defendant surgeon inserted a Verres needle that perforated the plaintiff's mesocolon and lacerated her iliac vein, causing chronic pain and other injuries. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant after receiving instructions that included a standard allowing the doctor to avoid liability based on the reasonable exercise of judgment. The trial court granted the plaintiff a new trial, finding both that the injury implied negligence as a matter of law and that the judgment instruction was improper. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the defense verdict, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded for a new trial, holding that the exercise-of-judgment charge was erroneous because the case involved only the execution of a procedure rather than a choice among acceptable medical alternatives.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved parents suing two obstetricians for medical malpractice after their child was born with bilateral limb reduction, alleging the doctors failed to warn about risks of Provera, a drug prescribed to the mother, which could cause fetal defects, thus depriving them of the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy. The doctors sought summary judgment, arguing that since the drug did not cause the defect, there was no liability under informed consent principles requiring proof of medical causation. The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether proof that the drug caused the birth defect is necessary in a wrongful birth claim based on inadequate warnings of fetal risks. The court determined that in such actions, the focus is on whether the lack of warning prevented the parents from making an informed decision about terminating the pregnancy, without requiring evidence that the drug actually caused the specific defect.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefamily lawabortion

In State v. Cuni, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and related offenses after having sexual intercourse with a thirty-year-old woman who had been assessed as mentally deficient; the defense sought to introduce evidence of the victim's two prior sexual experiences through cross-examination of the state's expert psychologist to show that she possessed the mental capacity to consent. The trial court excluded the evidence under New Jersey's Rape Shield Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7, and the Appellate Division affirmed the sexual assault convictions while reversing others on unrelated grounds. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Rape Shield Law could bar such evidence when offered to prove capacity to consent rather than to attack the victim's character, and whether that exclusion violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses, weighing the statute's protections against the probative value of the proffered testimony.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned defendant Randolph White's conviction for armed robbery and assault based on a victim's identification, where the trial court admitted a co-perpetrator's confession incriminating himself but excluded portions stating that White was not involved and had been mistakenly identified. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the excluded exculpatory portions were admissible as statements against penal interest under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25). The core reasoning was that New Jersey's rule, unlike the federal analogue, does not impose a corroboration requirement for declarations by another that exculpate the accused, and the statements were sufficiently connected to the declarant's self-incriminating account to qualify.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the validity of a Morristown ordinance creating a Special Improvement District (SID) that imposed assessments on commercial properties based on assessed value while exempting residential properties, after the town removed residences from SID boundaries following an earlier Appellate Division ruling. Plaintiffs, owners of commercial buildings, challenged the assessments as unconstitutional taxes violating uniformity requirements and as contrary to the original SID statute. The court held that a 1995 legislative amendment expressly authorizing residential exemptions applied retroactively as a curative measure clarifying prior intent, that the assessments were valid special assessments tied to benefits received, and that plaintiffs received adequate notice. It therefore affirmed the trial court's rulings upholding the ordinance and assessments.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a divorced couple's property settlement agreement that included a clause terminating the husband's alimony payments if the wife cohabited with an unrelated adult male for four continuous months. The trial court found cohabitation but refused to enforce the termination clause, instead reducing alimony based on economic support from the cohabitant. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the clause enforceable, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court reasoned that New Jersey strongly favors voluntary consensual agreements to resolve marital controversies and that freely negotiated provisions like this one, which treat cohabitation as a marriage-like domestic relationship, are enforceable to promote stability and individual autonomy in post-divorce arrangements.

family law

This case involves a construction worker injured at a Shop-Rite renovation site when her dump truck's defective power take-off system engaged unexpectedly, catching her hair and hand. The worker, employed by a subcontractor, sued Pat Pavers, the paving contractor overseeing the work, alleging negligence in failing to ensure safe equipment and conditions. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Pat Pavers, holding that evidence of the parties' relationship, the foreseeability of harm, and the defendant's opportunity to address the known defect created a triable issue on the existence and breach of a duty of care. The court further noted that alleged OSHA regulatory violations could serve as evidence of negligence supporting the claim. The matter was remanded for trial.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved two minor girls who were sexually abused over a year by their neighbor R.T.H., who pled guilty to endangering the welfare of minors; the girls and their parents then sued R.T.H. and his wife R.G.H. for damages, alleging the wife was negligent because she knew or should have known of her husband's conduct and failed to prevent the abuse. The trial court granted summary judgment to the wife, but the Appellate Division reversed and remanded, leading the New Jersey Supreme Court to consider whether a spouse who suspects or should suspect sexual abuse of neighboring children owes a duty of care to prevent it and whether breach of that duty can be a proximate cause of resulting harm. The court held that such a duty exists when the harm is foreseeable, arising from the wife's ability to observe the interactions and the special circumstances of the neighbor relationship, and that a breach could constitute proximate cause depending on the facts. It therefore assessed the evidence under the summary judgment standard, accepting the plaintiffs' allegations as true for purposes of the motion, and allowed the negligence claim against the wife to proceed.

torts & liabilityfamily law

The case involved a wrongful death claim arising from medical treatment after a car accident in New Jersey, where the decedent's widow, a New York resident, first sued a New Jersey hospital in federal court in New York based on diversity jurisdiction. The case was transferred to New Jersey federal court, additional New Jersey doctor defendants were added, and the action was later dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after the two-year period under New Jersey's Wrongful Death Act had expired; the plaintiff then refiled the identical claim in New Jersey state court. The trial court denied summary judgment by tolling the statute of limitations, but the Appellate Division reversed, and the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to address whether the federal filing could satisfy or toll the state limitations period. The court held that the state action was timely, reasoning that the Wrongful Death Act's substantive statute of limitations is subject to common-law flexibility, including the doctrine of substantial compliance, which was met by the timely federal complaint despite the subsequent jurisdictional dismissal.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In State v. Zutic, the defendant was convicted of drug offenses after police conducted a warrantless search of his person and vehicle, based on a confidential informant's tip about purchasing marijuana and a subsequent traffic stop for an unsafe lane change. The central issue was whether the partially corroborated tip provided probable cause for the personal search under the totality of the circumstances. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the informant's tip lacked demonstrated veracity and a reliable basis of knowledge, the police corroboration involved only innocent details without linking the defendant to criminal activity, and the defendant's nervousness and inconsistent statements were insufficient to establish probable cause. The court concluded that the police had at most reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stop, not a full search, and affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether drugs found in an apartment and used to convict defendant Shawn Smith of possession and distribution offenses were obtained through an unlawful warrantless search. Police relied on a confidential informant's tip describing a man selling drugs, stopped and searched defendant without a warrant, seized his keys, and then used the keys to gain consent from the apartment tenant to enter and discover the drugs. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the initial search of defendant lacked probable cause, rendering the seizure of the keys unlawful and tainting the subsequent consent as fruit of the poisonous tree, so both the keys and the drugs must be suppressed. The Court reasoned that the tip and limited corroboration were insufficient to justify the personal search, and the consent was obtained too closely in time and directly resulting from the constitutional violation. It reversed the Appellate Division's judgment affirming the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a worker who was injured when he fell down an elevator shaft while arriving early to his job at a garment factory located on the fourth floor of a multi-tenant building. The worker sought benefits under the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, claiming the injury occurred on the employer's premises during the course of employment. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's denial of benefits, holding that the accident was compensable because the elevator was part of the employer's premises under the premises rule, given the employee's authorized use for work-related purposes like transporting materials. The court's reasoning focused on the employer's control and the necessity of the elevator for ingress and egress in the context of the employment.

labor & employment

This case concerned the constitutionality of a police investigatory stop and subsequent search of defendant Joseph Citarella that uncovered crack cocaine, leading to his indictment for drug possession. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding the stop lawful. The core reasoning was that the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion based on Citarella's known drug-related criminal history, his travel in an unexpected direction from the George Washington Bridge while riding a bicycle he had never been seen with before and attempting to load it into an unfamiliar truck, his nervous demeanor, and his flight from the officer, all viewed in light of the officer's experience with local drug transport patterns and recent burglaries in the area; these factors justified the stop under Terry standards even before considering the flight, which further heightened suspicion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns the long-running litigation to enforce New Jersey's constitutional mandate for a thorough and efficient system of free public schools, focusing on educational deficiencies and funding disparities in the state's poorest urban districts (Abbott or special needs districts). The court ordered the implementation of specific remedial measures recommended after a remand, including parity funding, supplemental programs and services, and facility upgrades to meet the needs of disadvantaged students. These remedies draw from an extensive evidentiary record developed with input from the Commissioner of Education, experts, and a special master. The core reasoning holds that such measures are required to comply with the state constitution because prior statutes like the Quality Education Act of 1990 failed to deliver adequate resources or address the extreme disadvantages faced by students in these districts.

civil rights