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

The case involved defendant Edward Barry's convictions for felony murder and conspiracy arising from his role in planning and driving the getaway car for a bank robbery in which a police officer was fatally shot. The Appellate Division reversed the convictions, ruling that Barry's confession should have been suppressed as the product of an illegal arrest lacking probable cause and that statements by co-conspirators should have been admitted as statements against penal interest. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the convictions, holding that the confession was admissible because it was obtained after independent probable cause had been established through a co-conspirator's statement, breaking any causal connection to the initial arrest. The court reasoned that the timing of the questioning, after the defendant was legally detained, and the presentation of other evidence satisfied the attenuation analysis under Brown v. Illinois without requiring suppression to deter police misconduct.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by GATX Terminals Corporation to regulations adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection under the Spill Compensation and Control Act, which required major facilities handling hazardous substances to prepare discharge prevention plans and meet standards for design, construction, equipment, maintenance, and other aspects. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division's partial invalidation of these regulations and upheld them in full. The court reasoned that the Act's broad authority to control the transfer and storage of hazardous substances, including the requirement for standards on preventative procedures, personnel, and equipment at major facilities, encompassed the challenged regulations on facility design and construction, as supported by the statute's language and analogous federal provisions.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Jersey Central Power & Light Co. (JCP&L), a utility subsidiary, seeking adjustments to its tariffs under the Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause to recover increased costs for replacement electricity after the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident rendered its generating units inoperable or shut down by federal regulators. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities granted partial LEAC increases for replacement energy but excluded both TMI units from the rate base as not "used and useful," which reduced base revenues, while providing interim relief by accelerating recovery of a deferred energy account to maintain overall rates and cash flow. JCP&L appealed the orders, and the court affirmed, holding that the Board's actions fell within its broad statutory authority under the Department of Public Utilities Act to address the utility's financial issues on an interim basis pending a full rate case. The court reasoned that the exclusions were justified by prolonged outages and that the offset mechanism fairly balanced ratepayer and utility interests without impairing service. Issues like long-term rate base treatment were deferred to the ongoing base rate proceeding.

business & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved a Haitian immigrant who sought to annul a sham marriage entered into solely to obtain U.S. permanent residency through a scheme involving a U.S. citizen defendant who had participated in multiple such marriages for fees. Lower courts denied the annulment on the equitable doctrine of unclean hands because the plaintiff knowingly participated in the fraud. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the marriage lacked mutual assent under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1(d), providing a statutory ground for nullity, and that the judge-made unclean hands doctrine did not bar relief in this context. The Court reasoned that the statute's language on lack of mutual assent applied directly to sham marriages not subsequently ratified, and equitable considerations favored allowing the annulment over preserving the marriage or deferring to the no-fault divorce alternative.

family lawimmigration

The case concerned whether claims under policies issued by out-of-state surplus lines insurers that later became insolvent were protected by the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association Act as it stood before the February 22, 1980 amendments. The trial courts held that the Act did not apply to surplus lines carriers, but the Appellate Division reversed and found coverage. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the trial court judgments and ruling that the Act's definitions of "insolvent insurer" and "member insurer"—requiring admission or authorization to transact insurance business in the state—excluded surplus lines insurers, which are unauthorized carriers whose coverage is exported by licensed agents under the separate surplus lines law. This interpretation aligned with the NAIC model bill on which the Act was based, the consistent administrative practice of the Department of Insurance and the Association, and the 1980 amendment that expressly clarified the exclusion without altering the core definitions.

business & regulatory

The case concerned whether the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority violated the public bidding requirements of N.J.S.A. 5:10-21 by awarding a negotiated contract for installation and servicing of a totalisator system at the Meadowlands racetrack to American Totalisator Company without competitive bidding. Autotote Limited sued to set aside the contract, claiming the work was subject to the statute's advertising and lowest-responsible-bidder rules. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the decision below, holding that the contract qualified for the statutory exception covering services of a professional nature and that the Authority had properly invoked that exception after evaluating proposals from both companies.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a class action by 162 low-income New Jersey homeowners against Security Consumer Discount Company and related parties, challenging secondary mortgage loans used to finance home repairs as void under the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act due to illegal practices such as 15% kickbacks to a representative and creation of fictitious first mortgages. The trial court had upheld the loans, finding that Security did not know of or ratify the violations by its non-employee representatives. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the kickbacks violated N.J.S.A. 17:11A-48, that Security was responsible for the actions of its alter ego representative, and that the loans and mortgages were therefore void and unenforceable under N.J.S.A. 17:11A-58, with borrowers also entitled to repayment of post-suit mortgage payments.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned a challenge by Bally Manufacturing Corporation to a regulation adopted by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission that barred any licensed casino from obtaining more than 50% of its slot machines from a single manufacturer. Bally, which supplied about 80% of slot machines nationwide, argued that the rule exceeded the Commission's authority under the Casino Control Act, violated federal and state antitrust laws, was arbitrary, and was adopted without a required evidentiary hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that the Casino Control Act expressly empowered the Commission to prevent economic concentration in casino operations and ancillary industries, that the regulation was a reasonable means to advance that statutory goal of preserving competition, and that the Commission had properly used rulemaking procedures rather than adjudication. The court rejected the antitrust and due-process claims, finding the rule consistent with the Act's policy of strict state oversight and public confidence in casino gambling.

business & regulatory

This case concerned whether an insured under a New Jersey automobile insurance policy with personal injury protection (PIP) coverage could recover benefits after being injured while driving a commercial truck in an accident with passenger automobiles. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that the plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits. The court reasoned that the No Fault Act mandates coverage for bodily injury resulting from an accident involving an automobile, without restricting it to injuries sustained while occupying a private passenger vehicle, and that policy limitations conflicting with this statutory requirement are invalid. The decision emphasized the broad legislative intent for PIP coverage and the requirement for liberal construction of the Act.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned whether a Newark police officer acquitted by jury of criminal charges stemming from an alleged fake drug seizure was entitled to reimbursement from the city for his defense attorney's fees under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-155. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the officer and his law firm were entitled to recover $10,851. The court reasoned that the statute requires municipalities to provide or reimburse defense costs for actions arising out of or incidental to police duties when the criminal proceeding is not brought by the municipality and results in acquittal, that the officer had no notice of any prior-approval policy, and that the statute is constitutional as it is not special legislation and addresses a public purpose related to police functions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over control of St. Stephen's Parish property in Plainfield, New Jersey, after the local parish sought to disaffiliate from the Protestant Episcopal Church and Diocese of New Jersey due to disagreements over issues such as the ordination of women and changes to the Book of Common Prayer. The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Diocese, holding that the parish property could not be used for purposes not sanctioned by the Diocese, placing assets under diocesan control, and ordering removal of the rector from parish facilities. The court reasoned that St. Stephen's had been incorporated as an affiliate of the hierarchical Episcopal Church, had long submitted to diocesan authority in matters including finances, property transactions, and canons, and therefore could not unilaterally sever ties and retain control of the property. Neutral principles of law were applied to examine the corporate structure, deeds, and historical practices without resolving underlying doctrinal questions.

religious libertyproperty

This case involved a dispute over control of church property after the local St. Mark's Church in Orange, New Jersey, sought to disaffiliate from the Diocese of Newark and the Protestant Episcopal Church due to doctrinal disagreements and affiliate with another denomination. The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of the Diocese, holding that the local church's property remained under the control of the Episcopal-affiliated corporation and that the departing rector, wardens, and vestrymen could not exercise control over it or hold their offices. The court reasoned that under the hierarchical structure of the Protestant Episcopal Church, as recognized in prior precedent, local congregations are bound by the denomination's authority in such matters, and individuals who disaffiliate cannot take the church property with them, though they are free to leave the denomination.

religious libertyproperty

This personal injury case arose when plaintiff Angela Bell was injured in a car accident involving an allegedly unmarked bridge girder maintained jointly by Conrail and defendant PATCO, a subsidiary of the bi-state Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA). The central issue was whether DRPA qualified as a 'public entity' under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, which would require compliance with the Act's strict 90-day notice and one-year late-filing limits. The court held that DRPA is not a public entity within the meaning of the Act because it was created by an interstate compact between New Jersey and Pennsylvania that was approved by Congress and contains a 'sue and be sued' clause. Applying the Act would impose unilateral limitations on the agency's liability that were not agreed to by both states, violating principles of comity and the compact itself. As a result, the plaintiff's suit against DRPA and PATCO could proceed under the general two-year statute of limitations without satisfying the Tort Claims Act's procedural requirements.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In this personal injury case, plaintiff Ruby Cox sued Valley Fair Corporation after slipping and falling on cherries in a supermarket aisle, resulting in claimed permanent injuries to her arm, leg, and back along with medical expenses and lost wages. A jury awarded her $51,200 and her husband $1,000 in per quod damages, but the Appellate Division set aside the damages award and ordered a new trial on damages only, finding that plaintiffs' counsel's summation improperly suggested a per diem or formula-based approach to calculating pain and suffering. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, holding that the summation violated the prohibition established in Botta v. Brunner against counsel urging juries to use mathematical formulas or similar speculative methods to value intangible damages like pain and suffering, as such matters lack any precise monetary standard and must instead be based on fair and reasonable compensation as determined by the jury. The Court noted that counsel's references to daily suffering, life expectancy in days, and analogies to dental pain crossed into impermissible advocacy despite not stating an explicit per-hour figure.

torts & liabilityprocedure