Mark A. Sullivan

This case concerned Morris County's challenge to the Director of the Division of Local Government Services' refusal to approve its 1981 budget, which included anticipated revenues from state-collected Financial Business Tax and Corporation Business Tax that were to be distributed to counties. The court affirmed the Director's decision, holding that these revenues could not reasonably be anticipated because the Legislature had not yet included them in the general appropriations law, and the Governor had recommended against their distribution. The reasoning centered on the Local Budget Law's requirement that budget estimates of revenue be reasonable and accurate to prevent deficit financing, with the Director's review ensuring that only realizable amounts are included; uncertain funds could be added later if appropriated.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a police officer who was injured while attempting to arrest a driver for a traffic violation after a high-speed pursuit; the officer sued the driver for negligence in operating the vehicle during the stop and arrest attempt. The trial court and Appellate Division refused to apply the fireman’s rule to bar recovery, and the jury awarded damages to the officer and his wife after finding the driver 90% at fault. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the fireman’s rule—which generally prevents recovery for ordinary negligence that merely creates the occasion for a public safety officer’s presence—does not apply to negligent conduct occurring after the officer has stopped the vehicle and is making an arrest. The court distinguished the facts from cases involving stolen vehicles or premises liability and noted that the rule is based on assumption of the usual risks of the job rather than subsequent independent acts of negligence.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved Bergen Catholic High School, a private sectarian boys' school, suing the Northern New Jersey Interscholastic League after the League denied its membership applications despite a prior Conciliation Agreement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights that required the League to amend its constitution and evaluate applicants using objective, nondiscriminatory criteria. Following the League's selection of another public school over Bergen Catholic based on an eight-factor evaluation that included subjective elements, the trial court ruled that the denial violated equal protection under the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions as well as federal civil rights statutes and ordered the school admitted to the League. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the constitutional and statutory claims independent of the Law Against Discrimination were not viable given the Agreement's terms and that any alleged violation of the Conciliation Agreement itself must first be addressed through the Division on Civil Rights under the statutory exhaustion requirement, leading to dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerned the scope of review that a municipal governing body must apply under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-17 when an appeal is taken from a zoning board of adjustment's denial of a use variance application under the Municipal Land Use Law. Property owners sought a variance to convert a residential property into a law office; the board denied it, but the township council, after reviewing the record, granted the variance on the grounds that special reasons existed and the use would not harm the neighborhood. The board and an intervenor challenged the council's action in court, and lower courts ruled that the council's review was limited to checking for arbitrary or capricious board action. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the statute grants the governing body plenary authority to make its own findings and conclusions based on the record, reversing the Appellate Division and upholding the council's grant of the variance.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a property owner's application for a subdivision and use variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d) to develop part of a residentially zoned tract for a professional office building, after the local board of adjustment approved it over objections but the township committee reversed on de novo review. The Law Division reinstated the variance, but the Appellate Division and New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the committee's denial. The court held that special reasons for the variance were not shown because the property was suitable for its zoned residential use, any border-area effects from adjacent non-residential properties did not constitute unique circumstances justifying erosion of the zone plan, and the variance would impair sound zoning principles. The decision rested on the statutory requirements that both positive special reasons and negative criteria must be met for such relief.

property

In State v. Corsi, two defendants were jointly tried and convicted of conspiracy, armed robbery, and murder based on a fatal assault during a robbery, with one also convicted of assault; the trial used separate juries for each defendant to handle a Bruton issue arising from an out-of-court statement by one implicating the other. The trial court denied severance motions but implemented the dual-jury procedure, with separate openings, closings, charges, and deliberations, and the Appellate Division affirmed the life sentences. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that no reversible error or specific prejudice occurred despite general concerns about jury confusion, while observing that the multiple-jury approach involves substantial risks and is not recommended except in uncomplicated cases.

criminal lawprocedure