Stewart Glasson Pollock

The case involved a proposed class action by approximately 7,500 purchasers of 1981 Cadillac vehicles with V8-6-4 engines against General Motors, alleging common design defects in the engine and that GM knowingly defrauded consumers by selling the cars. The trial court certified a statewide class of owners, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the certification with modifications, concluding that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues and that a class action was superior to other methods for fair adjudication under the relevant court rules. The court also held that the law firm Karp, P.A. could not serve in the dual roles of class representative and class counsel due to conflicts and required it to elect one role on remand. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Bey, defendant Marko Bey appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a death sentence imposed after his 1984 conviction for the murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and robbery of Carol Peniston. Bey argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence at the 1990 penalty-phase retrial, which also allegedly impaired his rights to testify and allocute, and raised additional claims including entitlement to a new guilt-phase trial under State v. Gerald regarding intent. The Supreme Court of New Jersey rejected all claims after an evidentiary hearing, finding no deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's actions and no merit in the other assertions, and affirmed the denial of relief and the death sentence.

criminal law

This case involves a stepfather seeking to adopt two minor children and terminate the parental rights of their biological father, who has a history of alcoholism, mental illness, and inconsistent involvement in their lives. The Family Part terminated the father's rights and approved the adoption, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the father did not pose an imminent danger to the children. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and remanded the matter to the Family Part for reconsideration under a recently amended version of N.J.S.A. 9:3-46, which emphasizes the best interests of the child as the dominant consideration, including whether the parent has affirmatively assumed parental duties such as financial support and maintaining communication.

family law

This case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by New Jersey State Senator John A. Lynch, Jr., against Republican challenger Edward Tiller, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), and related campaign supporters, arising from negative campaign materials published during the 1991 state senate election. The materials included a newspaper advertisement and mailer accusing Lynch of ties to organized crime, toxic waste violations, corruption, and other scandals, as well as an unattributed flier making similar claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed in part the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's denial of summary judgment, holding that most statements were non-actionable opinions, protected political rhetoric, or lacked evidence of actual malice required for defamation of a public official; it also found no evidence linking defendants to the flier. The court reversed in part and remanded as to defendants Barry Brendel and his firm for further proceedings.

electionsfree speechtorts & liability

This case concerned whether the doctrine of informed consent requires a physician to discuss medically reasonable alternative treatments with a patient, including those the physician does not recommend, even when the chosen treatment is noninvasive. After an elderly patient fractured her hip, her orthopedic surgeon selected bed-rest treatment over surgery involving hip pinning; the patient later suffered complications including loss of mobility and sued, alleging the physician failed to obtain informed consent by not adequately discussing surgery. The Law Division ruled that informed consent applies only to invasive procedures and excluded related evidence, leading to a defense verdict on malpractice, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that physicians must explain the risks and outcomes of all medically reasonable invasive and noninvasive alternatives to enable patients to make informed choices, particularly when options are mutually exclusive, and that the trial court had improperly barred the plaintiff from presenting her evidence on this issue.

healthcaretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the South Plainfield Board of Adjustment arbitrarily denied use and bulk variances sought by New Brunswick Cellular Telephone Co. to construct a cellular communications monopole in an industrial zone where such structures were not permitted as of right. The Law Division found that the company had satisfied the positive and negative criteria under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d) and ordered approval, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Law Division judgment, holding that the proposed use served the general welfare because the site was particularly suitable and that the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or impairment of the zoning plan. The Court applied the balancing test for uses that promote the general welfare, drawing on its prior decision in Smart SMR, and noted the Telecommunications Act of 1996's constraints on local zoning authority over wireless facilities.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned a telecommunications company's application for use and bulk variances to construct a 100-foot monopole tower and equipment building in a commercial zone. The zoning board denied the variances for lack of proof that the project would not substantially impair the master plan or zoning ordinance. Lower courts reversed the denial, but the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division after its Smart SMR decision clarified that such facilities are not inherently beneficial uses. The Court found the positive criteria satisfied by the FCC license, demonstrated service need, and site suitability, yet remanded to the board for expert testimony on the negative criteria before any variance grant.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a real estate broker suing multiple defendants, including Roizman, for a $390,000 commission, claiming they were jointly and severally liable for tortious interference and related claims. Roizman offered $1000 to settle only its share, which the plaintiff rejected, after which the trial court granted Roizman summary judgment and awarded it attorney's fees under the offer-of-judgment rule (Rule 4:58). The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal but vacated the fee award, and the Supreme Court affirmed that result. The court held that Rule 4:58-3 does not subject a plaintiff asserting joint and several liability to fee consequences for rejecting a single defendant's offer to settle only its own claim, and that no fees were available anyway because the unliquidated damages claim did not result in an award exceeding $750. The court referred the rule to the Civil Practice Committee for reconsideration.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

The case concerned whether New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who reports misconduct by co-employees, even without the employer's complicity in that misconduct. Plaintiff Josephine Higgins, a nurse at Pascack Valley Hospital, complained that two paramedics falsified patient treatment forms after an emergency call and alleged that the hospital responded by transferring her from the mobile intensive care unit, cutting her hours, and denying her a promotion. The trial court and Appellate Division had ruled that CEPA required employer complicity for protection to apply, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's broad language protects good-faith reports of legal or regulatory violations by coworkers. The Court upheld the CEPA judgment against the hospital based on the jury verdict but affirmed dismissal of Higgins's defamation claim against individual defendants and supervisors.

labor & employment

This case involved a labor dispute between the Policeman’s Benevolent Association, Local 292 and the Borough of North Haledon over the borough’s hiring of a special law enforcement officer to perform regular police shifts, which the union claimed violated their collective bargaining agreement and state statutes. After an arbitrator ruled for the PBA, the union filed a plenary action to confirm the award more than three months later, while the borough sought to vacate it through a counterclaim. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that common-law arbitration survived the enactment of the Arbitration Act, so the prevailing party could pursue confirmation in a plenary proceeding subject to the six-year statute of limitations for contracts, while the losing party could assert affirmative defenses but could not file a late action or counterclaim to vacate after the Act’s three-month deadline. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling that neither confirmation nor vacation was available and remanded the matter to the Chancery Division.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a law firm that jointly represented a husband and wife in estate planning while also representing the mother of the husband's illegitimate child in a paternity action, due to a clerical error that failed to detect the conflict. After withdrawing from the paternity matter, the firm wished to disclose the child's existence to the wife, prompting the husband to seek court restraints against such disclosure. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the firm could inform the wife of the child's existence. The decision rested on the spouses' signed waiver of conflicts allowing information sharing between co-clients, the fact that the firm learned of the paternity from a third party, and applicable rules of professional conduct permitting disclosure in this context without violating paternity record confidentiality statutes.

family lawproperty

This case involved Cameco suing its former employee Gedicke for breach of the duty of loyalty after he secretly formed a side business, Newton Transport Service, that arranged shipping for two of Cameco's competitors using some of the same truckers, all while Gedicke worked as Cameco's salaried traffic manager. The trial court dismissed the claims at the close of Cameco's case, but the Appellate Division reinstated the loyalty claims, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed that reinstatement with modifications before remanding for further findings. The court held that an employee can breach the duty of loyalty by assisting a competitor even without direct competition, depending on factors such as the employee's level, the extent of assistance, any harm to the employer, and whether the employee acted adversely to the employer's interests. It noted that possible remedies could include partial salary forfeiture or profit disgorgement but emphasized that the trial court must weigh the evidence as factfinder on remand.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Noel, the defendant was convicted of purposeful or knowing murder and possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose after being linked to a shooting through witness testimony and ballistics evidence. The key issue was the admissibility of expert testimony from an FBI analyst who used inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP) to show that some bullets recovered from the crime scene and victim's body shared the same chemical composition as bullets found in the defendant's possession, indicating they came from the same manufacturing batch. The Appellate Division reversed the convictions, holding that the testimony required supporting statistical probability evidence to be admissible. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the convictions, ruling that statistical evidence is not a prerequisite for admitting such expert testimony on bullet composition, as the evidence was offered only as circumstantial proof of a possible common source rather than definitive identification, and its reliability was sufficiently established.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a gas service line installed from a main to a residential home in 1955 qualified as an "improvement to real property" under New Jersey's ten-year statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1, which bars claims against contractors for defects after that period. After a 1990 explosion from the old line damaged the Eberts' home, South Jersey Gas settled with the homeowners but pursued a claim against the original installer Kiely, who moved for summary judgment on timeliness grounds. The trial court denied the motion, viewing the line as a mere conduit, but the Appellate Division reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the line met the definition of an improvement due to its permanent nature, functional utility, and enhancement of the property's value.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Hector Cruz-Mendez, who was injured when he lit a leftover firework from a display sponsored by the Montclair Golf Club and conducted by Girone, Inc. Cruz-Mendez sued Girone’s insurers directly under a surety bond/insurance policy required by N.J.S.A. 21:3-5 for the municipal fireworks permit, asserting a strict-liability claim. The court held that the plaintiff could pursue the direct action against the insurers because the policy functioned as the statutory surety for damages arising from the display. It further ruled that the plaintiff must prove proximate cause and that his comparative negligence could serve as an affirmative defense if he voluntarily encountered a known risk, with both issues to be decided by a jury. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

torts & liability

The case involved defendant Robert Morton, who was convicted of purposeful or knowing murder by his own conduct and related offenses stemming from the February 1993 robbery and stabbing death of gas station attendant Michael Eck, as well as an earlier stabbing of another victim. The jury imposed a death sentence, and Morton appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that the evidence, including witness identifications and statements, supported the jury's determinations and that trial procedures were adequate. A dissent argued that errors in the penalty phase, including insufficient voir dire on racial bias in this cross-racial case, the defendant's absence from proceedings, and ineffective assistance of counsel, required reversal of the death sentence.

criminal law

The case involved a professional blackjack card counter who sued a casino and its employees for discrimination in selectively enforcing gaming rules against him, breach of contract, and malicious prosecution arising from his arrest after refusing to leave a table. The New Jersey Supreme Court modified the Appellate Division's ruling by holding that the Casino Control Commission lacks exclusive jurisdiction over such patron claims, allowing common-law causes of action for discrimination and breach of contract to proceed in court because the CCC's regulatory role does not extend to awarding damages to individuals. The Court reversed the $1 million malicious prosecution award, however, because the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on determining probable cause when underlying facts were disputed, and remanded for further proceedings including possible summary judgment.

criminal lawcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff burned by an explosion from two insecticide foggers, who sued the manufacturers and sellers on failure-to-warn, manufacturing-defect, and design-defect claims. The trial court dismissed the failure-to-warn claim as preempted by federal pesticide law (FIFRA) and later granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury found for the plaintiff only on the design-defect claim involving the choice of propellant. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the warning claim and reversed the JNOV on liability but not damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the preemption ruling, reversed the JNOV, and modified the remand to include a retrial on liability and comparative negligence, holding that evidence of a feasible alternative design was sufficient for jury consideration.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved a patient who sued her ophthalmologist, the hospital, and the intraocular lens manufacturer for lack of informed consent after undergoing cataract surgery with an experimental lens under an FDA investigational device exemption, alleging she was not told about the lens's experimental status or alternatives. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims and federal preemption of state claims against the manufacturer, but the Appellate Division reversed; the New Jersey Supreme Court modified that reversal and remanded the matter. The court's analysis focused on when the informed consent claim accrued for limitations purposes and the scope of preemption under the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedurefederal power

The case concerned whether Lois McDermott, owner of a 1990 Honda Accord seized after her son used it to commit drug offenses, was entitled to a jury trial in a civil forfeiture proceeding under New Jersey's Forfeiture Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9. The Law Division conducted a summary non-jury hearing and ordered forfeiture, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the statute's provision for summary disposition without a jury was unconstitutional. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the state constitution preserves the right to a jury trial in actions to forfeit "innocent" property like automobiles to the same extent it existed at common law, and historical practice in New Jersey and elsewhere showed that such forfeitures of property usable for lawful purposes were generally tried by jury rather than resolved summarily. The Court distinguished forfeitures of prima facie contraband and noted that the absence of automobiles in colonial times did not eliminate the jury right for modern equivalents of ships and other property subject to jury trials historically. The decision remanded for a jury trial on McDermott's innocent-owner defense but took no position on the merits of her claim.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure