Virginia Long

This case arose from a real estate transaction in which plaintiff Debra Lombardi purchased a renovated property that turned out to be defective, allegedly involving fraud, misrepresentations, and a worthless escrow check by defendants including property flippers, real estate agents, and related entities. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to several defendants but later vacated it after a proof hearing revealed material factual disputes, leading to appeals on procedural grounds. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the trial judge had discretion to reconsider the interlocutory summary judgment order in the interests of justice, that the law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration, and that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy. The Court also upheld the procedural validity of the appeal despite filing irregularities. The core reasoning focused on the flexibility of interlocutory rulings and the need for a full trial on disputed facts from the original record.

procedurepropertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether a mother neglected her four-year-old son under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 by leaving him home alone for roughly two hours after mistakenly assuming his grandmother was present based on the family's usual Sunday routine. DYFS substantiated a finding of neglect for inadequate supervision, which the Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the mother's conduct, though negligent, did not rise to the statutory threshold of failing to exercise a minimum degree of care because it was not grossly negligent or reckless under the known circumstances.

family law

The case concerned whether an insurer had a duty to defend emotional distress claims by two mothers who witnessed their children suffer burns in an apartment fire allegedly caused by the landlord's negligent use of paint thinner. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a Portee claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which does not allege physical injury, still triggers the duty to defend under a commercial general liability policy's "bodily injury" coverage because such claims are potentially covered. The court reasoned that precedent requires defense of potentially covered claims until physical manifestations are disproved or the claim is otherwise resolved without them, and it therefore placed the defense burden on the insurer.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved developers seeking site plan approval to build a hotel on one lot and construct a driveway across an adjacent undersized lot containing a preexisting nonconforming auto-body shop to provide highway access. The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether variances were required under the Municipal Land Use Law for the proposed driveway, which was not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the zoning ordinance. The Court held that because the driveway was not an accessory use, it constituted a second principal use, requiring a variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1). The Court further held that a variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(2) would be necessary unless the planning board determined that any intensification of the nonconformity was insubstantial, and remanded the matter to the board for consideration of the variances and full review of the site plan.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a police officer, Gregory Russo, who sought accidental disability pension benefits after developing PTSD from a 2001 house fire rescue in which he suffered smoke inhalation, witnessed a victim's death, and faced blame from the victim's family. The Board of Trustees denied the claim, finding the event inconsequential despite meeting other criteria, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the incident satisfied the standards from Richardson v. Board of Trustees (requiring a permanent disability from a qualifying traumatic event during duties, without willful negligence) and Patterson v. Board of Trustees (requiring a direct experience of a terrifying event involving death or serious injury). The Court reasoned that the fire rescue was objectively capable of causing mental injury, as confirmed by expert testimony linking Russo's disability directly to the event rather than training or other factors, and remanded for processing the award.

labor & employment

In State v. Handy, police stopped the defendant for a bicycle ordinance violation and arrested him after a dispatcher incorrectly confirmed an outstanding warrant despite mismatches in name spelling, birth date, age of the warrant, and location; a search incident to arrest uncovered drugs. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the evidence must be suppressed. The Court reasoned that the dispatcher, as an integral part of the law enforcement chain, acted in an objectively unreasonable manner by relaying the warrant information without accounting for the clear discrepancies, violating the Fourth Amendment and the parallel state constitutional provision. Because the error originated with police personnel, the exclusionary rule applied to deter such misconduct even though the arresting officer himself acted reasonably.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the Policemen's Benevolent Association and the City of Trenton over compensation for police officers required to report ten minutes early for muster under their collective bargaining agreement, which provided that no overtime would be paid for that period but was silent on straight-time pay. An arbitrator interpreted the agreement to require straight-time compensation for the time worked, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the award. The court applied the "reasonably debatable" standard for reviewing arbitration awards in public employment disputes, finding the arbitrator's holistic reading of the contract provisions plausible even if not the only or best interpretation. The matter was remanded to the trial court for confirmation of the award.

labor & employment

This case concerned the Town of Kearny's efforts to condemn leasehold interests held by James Farm Market Corp. and James Wholesale Warehouse, Inc., on property that had been designated as blighted for redevelopment under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that non-record owners like the lessees could not challenge the blight designation after failing to object during the statutory process or via a timely action in lieu of prerogative writs. It further ruled that a leasehold interest qualifies as a condemnable interest in land under the Eminent Domain Act, entitling the lessee to bona fide negotiations with the condemning authority, and that a standard condemnation clause in the lease did not exempt the municipality from that obligation when the lessor was also the redeveloper. Because those negotiations had not occurred, the Court dismissed the condemnation complaint.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a divorced mother's application to relocate with her two young daughters from New Jersey to Massachusetts to join her fiancé and extended family, which the father opposed on custody grounds. After the trial court denied relocation under the Baures standard, finding neither a good-faith reason nor lack of harm to the children, the Appellate Division reversed and permitted the move. The Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the trial court's denial but modified the scope of the remand, holding that the original analysis was flawed and that the Baures factors must be reassessed in light of the substantial changes in the parties' circumstances over the intervening four years. The Court directed an expedited hearing that updates the relevant considerations and any psychological evaluations.

family law

In Hopewell Valley Citizens' Group, Inc. v. Berwind Property Group Development Co., the case involved a citizens' group challenging a township planning board's approval of a large commercial development site plan after public hearings. The board and developer published notices of the approval on different dates in September and October 2008, and an objector, relying on information from the board about the later publication date, filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs 45 days after the second notice but after the period from the first notice. The lower courts dismissed the complaint as untimely, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 45-day filing period should be enlarged under Rule 4:69-6(c) because the interest of justice required it due to the circumstances of the objector being informed of the later date.

procedureproperty

This case concerned the enforceability of an arbitration award resolving child custody and parenting time disputes between divorced parents David and Molly Johnson under New Jersey's Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA). The trial court confirmed the arbitrator's award based on the existing record, but the Appellate Division reversed due to the lack of a verbatim transcript. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed that decision, holding that the detailed documentary record, including the arbitrator's recapitulation of interviews, observations, and full explanations of the award, satisfied the requirements established in Fawzy v. Fawzy for meaningful judicial review of potential harm to the children. The Court reasoned that Fawzy's procedural safeguards apply to all child custody arbitrations regardless of the governing statute, but a verbatim transcript is not mandatory where an adequate substitute record exists to test claims of harm.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a police recruit who was injured during training at the Somerset County Police Academy after being required to sign an exculpatory agreement waiving claims against the Academy and related entities for any injuries sustained. The recruit sued the Academy, county, and supervisors alleging negligence in supervision and a dangerous condition on the property where he slipped while carrying a heavy cooler. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the waiver agreement along with other defenses under the Tort Claims Act, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exculpatory agreement was invalid because it contravened public policy as expressed in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act governing liability of public entities.

torts & liability

This case involved siblings of five-year-old twins who had been removed from their mother's custody by the Division of Youth and Family Services, placed in foster care, and whose mother's parental rights were later terminated. The siblings sought continued visitation both during the pre-adoption period and after the twins' adoption by their foster mother, following the termination of visits when the foster mother objected. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that sibling visitation is presumed during the period between placement and adoption under the Child Placement Bill of Rights Act, with the Division bearing the burden to overcome that presumption if it opposes visits. Post-adoption, the Court ruled that adoptive parents enjoy autonomy similar to biological parents, but courts may order third-party visitation under the state's parens patriae authority if necessary to prevent harm to the child. The Court reversed the lower courts' decisions, which had treated the authority to deny visitation as absolute, and remanded for further proceedings.

family law

The case concerned TAC Associates' application for an Innocent Party Grant under the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act to offset costs of cleaning up contaminated property. The Department of Environmental Protection denied the application on the ground that TAC no longer owned the property when it applied. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the statutory eligibility criteria require the applicant to own the property at the time of the grant application. The court's reasoning rested on the plain language of N.J.S.A. 58:10B-5(d) and N.J.S.A. 58:10B-6(a)(4), which limit grants to persons who own the affected real property.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Peachtree Condominium Association's third-party complaint against Key Engineers, Inc. alleging professional negligence in supervising construction work, which was filed after Peachtree was sued for construction defects. Key moved to dismiss because Peachtree failed to serve an affidavit of merit within the 120-day period set by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, and no Ferreira conference had been scheduled due to track assignment issues. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled that omission of the Ferreira conference does not toll the statutory deadline because the conference was intended only as a reminder mechanism and not as an extension of the legislatively prescribed period, but it reversed the dismissal to afford relief given the evident confusion among litigants and courts over the conference's role and scheduling.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned criminal charges against defendant P.S. for first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and endangering the welfare of a child, all involving his stepdaughter. The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of the victim's statements to a child interview specialist under the tender years exception when the interview tape was lost, reaffirming a totality-of-circumstances standard rather than a per se exclusion rule, and reiterated that interview notes should be preserved. The Court also held that other-crimes evidence of a prior alleged molestation was improperly admitted under N.J.R.E. 404(b) merely to bolster the victim's credibility against a vendetta defense, as such evidence cannot be used to show propensity, and therefore reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rose Nini, a contract employee at Mercer County Community College for twenty-six years who was over seventy when notified that her contract would not be renewed. She sued the college and related defendants alleging age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The trial court granted summary judgment to the college, interpreting the LAD's exception for refusing to employ persons over seventy as applicable, but the Appellate Division reversed that decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory exception applies only to initial hiring and does not permit nonrenewal of an existing employee's contract on the basis of age, which it equated to a prohibited termination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned whether a school district could pursue tenure charges against a tenured teacher, Gilbert Young, for alleged improper sexual contact with a former student after the Department of Children and Families independently investigated and deemed the child abuse allegations unfounded. The district filed charges of conduct unbecoming under the Tenure Employees Hearing Law, and Young moved to dismiss based on N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7a. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the statute does not bar a school district from later bringing disciplinary charges even when DCF has found the underlying complaint unfounded, because the plain language of the provision imposes no such preclusion. The Court affirmed the lower rulings allowing the tenure proceedings to continue.

labor & employment

This case concerned a defamation lawsuit brought by Thomas John Salzano against a media company after it published articles drawing from a bankruptcy trustee's complaint that accused him of misappropriating funds from a bankrupt telecommunications firm. The central issue was whether the fair-report privilege, which shields accurate reports of official proceedings, extends to initial court filings without prior judicial action, and whether the privilege can be overcome by proof of malice. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the privilege applies to initial pleadings as they are public records, and once a report is full, fair, and accurate, the privilege becomes absolute regardless of the publisher's state of mind. The court ruled that the portions of the articles based directly on the complaint were protected, but the plaintiff could proceed with claims regarding defamatory statements from other sources. The decision emphasized the public's interest in information about official matters while limiting liability to inaccuracies in reporting.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure

In Roa v. Roa, former employees sued their employer and supervisor under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) for retaliation after one employee reported sexual harassment by a supervisor, leading to their terminations and other adverse actions. The court addressed the two-year statute of limitations for LAD antiretaliation claims, specifically whether a timely post-discharge claim (such as cancellation of health insurance) could revive an untimely discharge claim through the continuing violation doctrine, and whether post-discharge retaliation must relate to employment. The court held that the limitations period begins on the date of each discrete retaliatory act, a timely post-discharge claim does not sweep in prior untimely discrete acts, and such post-discharge acts are independently actionable regardless of employment ties. It further ruled that evidence of time-barred claims may be admissible at trial under N.J.R.E. 404(b) to show motive or intent. The Appellate Division was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with the insurance cancellation claim allowed to proceed.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure