Helen E. Hoens

The case concerned a motion to disqualify attorney Bruce Meller and his firm from representing defendant PB Americas in litigation over delays and responsibilities on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail N30 construction project. Meller had previously been retained by FKSB, a subcontractor on the project, to advise it on the same delay issues and potential claims against other parties including PB Americas and the prime contractor. Both lower courts declined to disqualify the attorney, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the later representation was directly adverse to the former client on substantially related matters and therefore violated RPC 1.9.

procedure

The case concerned whether a murder suspect's repeated requests during police interrogation to speak with his mother constituted an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, which would have required officers to cease questioning. The trial court suppressed the defendant's post-request statements, and the Appellate Division suppressed a portion of them, but the New Jersey Supreme Court held that none of the requests invoked the right to silence. The Court reasoned that the statements, viewed in context under the totality of the circumstances, expressed a desire to consult his mother rather than a wish to stop speaking with police, and the defendant had validly waived his Miranda rights earlier. Accordingly, the Court reversed the suppression orders and held that the full confession was admissible.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved former partners J.D. and M.D.F. and proceedings under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, where the plaintiff sought a final restraining order based on a September 2008 complaint alleging harassment through late-night photography outside her home along with several prior incidents. The trial court issued the order after hearing testimony that included references to unlisted prior acts, and the Appellate Division affirmed, but the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed and remanded for rehearing. The court held that due process requires courts to address testimony about acts not identified in the complaint, to permit defendants a fair opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to make explicit findings on both the predicate act of harassment and the necessity of restraints under the statutory standards. The decision rested on an independent review finding insufficient articulation of those elements in the record.

criminal lawfamily lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a long-term commercial relationship in which Pomerantz Paper Corp. sold supplies to New Community Corp., a nonprofit, leading to Pomerantz's suit for unpaid invoices and New Community's counterclaim alleging unconscionable practices under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The trial court largely rejected Pomerantz's claims but awarded relief on the CFA counterclaim, while the Appellate Division partially reversed on the contract claim by imposing additional UCC notice requirements. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the CFA findings rested on insufficient credible evidence, including an impermissible expert net opinion, and that the UCC and parties' course of dealing did not require written notice of nondelivery. It remanded for entry of judgment awarding Pomerantz $15,000 on conceded invoices and dismissing the counterclaim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved claims under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act against a landscaping corporation and its individual owners and employees arising from home improvement work on plaintiffs' property, including allegations of using improper backfill and failing to meet regulatory requirements for a retaining wall. The court considered whether the individuals could face personal liability for acts performed through the corporation and whether collateral estoppel barred them from contesting the damages determined in the trial that proceeded only against the corporate defendant. The court concluded that individuals may be held liable under the CFA based on their own participation in the violations, but collateral estoppel does not apply to the individual defendants because they were not in privity with the corporation and did not control the prior litigation, with additional fairness concerns for at least one defendant; the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Kovalcik sought disclosure under New Jersey's Open Public Records Act (OPRA) of training documents and curricula vitae for two detectives from the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office, after a similar discovery request had been denied in his underlying criminal prosecution. The court considered whether the criminal court's denial order qualified as a confidentiality order exempting the records from OPRA, and whether the records fell within the personnel records exemption or its exception for documents showing required qualifications for government employment. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the discovery denial did not create an OPRA exemption via confidentiality order. It reversed on the personnel records issue, holding that the record was inadequate to determine if the documents met the exception, and remanded for further proceedings to develop evidence on the specific job requirements and document contents.

criminal lawprocedure