Barry T. Albin

The case concerned a mortgage lender that issued a loan secured by an affordable housing condominium unit in excess of 95 percent of the unit's maximum allowable resale price, in violation of regulations promulgated by the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency under the Fair Housing Act. After the borrower defaulted, the Chancery Division declined to void the loan or mortgage, while the Appellate Division voided only the mortgage. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed, holding that the regulation's plain language declaring any such loan void as against public policy required invalidating the loan itself rather than merely the mortgage securing it. The Court reasoned that the agency's contrary interpretation would permit lenders to collect on the unlawful portion of the loan, undermining the regulation's goals of preventing predatory lending and protecting low- and moderate-income owners from unaffordable debt.

business & regulatorypropertycivil rights

In this case, plaintiff John Seals sued Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) and Morris County after crashing into an electric utility pole located a few feet off a county road, alleging negligent placement by the utility and failure to address a dangerous condition by the county. The trial court denied summary judgment to both defendants, but the Appellate Division reversed as to JCP&L, finding implicit approval of the pole's location and remanding on the county's liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that JCP&L was not entitled to immunity under Contey v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. because the governing statute for electric poles (N.J.S.A. 48:7-1) differs from that for telephone poles and neither the county nor township directed the pole's placement, leaving JCP&L solely responsible. The Court further ruled that any claim against the county must be evaluated under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act's provisions for dangerous conditions of property and plan-or-design immunity, remanding for further proceedings on those issues.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case Wilson v. City of Jersey City involved a lawsuit against two 9-1-1 operators and their public employer for alleged negligence in mishandling an emergency call reporting a disturbance that resulted in a multiple homicide. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on grounds of statutory immunity, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding no immunity for errors in dispatching first responders. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10 confers immunity on 9-1-1 operators and public entities for ordinary negligence in the delivery of 9-1-1 services, including the handling of emergency calls, based on the statute's language, legislative history, and overall objectives, while remanding for further proceedings on whether the operators' conduct amounted to wanton and willful disregard.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Stanford Yough's conviction for second-degree robbery based primarily on the testimony of victim Cesar Alva, who identified Yough in court and described seeing him multiple times before the incident. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that a mistrial should have been granted due to Alva's trial testimony suggesting post-robbery threats or intimidation by the defendant without a curative instruction. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the conviction, reasoning that a fair reading of the victim's testimony did not implicate inadmissible bad-act evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b), the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Blanca Gonzalez, who co-owned a home pledged as collateral for a loan taken by her partner Monserate Diaz; after Diaz's death and Gonzalez falling behind on payments, the lender obtained a foreclosure judgment but entered successive post-judgment agreements with Gonzalez to forbear on the sale in exchange for payments that she alleged included illicit financing charges and predatory terms. Gonzalez sued under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, claiming the servicing agent exploited her limited education and bypassed her attorney. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the post-judgment agreements outside the Act's scope, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreements constituted an extension of credit originating from the original loan and that fraudulent lending practices in a post-judgment setting can support a Consumer Fraud Act claim.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, a mother filed survival and wrongful death claims after her uninsured son was killed in a car accident allegedly caused by another driver's negligence. The defendants argued that N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a) barred both claims because the son had been operating an uninsured vehicle. The trial court dismissed the survival claim but allowed the wrongful death claim to proceed, and the Appellate Division affirmed in a split decision. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory bar also applied to the wrongful death action. Under the plain language of the Wrongful Death Act, heirs can recover only if the decedent could have maintained a cause of action had he lived, so the son's inability to sue due to the insurance requirement prevented the mother's recovery.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether the New Jersey State League of Municipalities qualifies as a public agency under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and must therefore release documents related to its comments on proposed affordable housing regulations. The trial court and Appellate Division held that the League was not a public agency because it did not perform traditional governmental functions. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the League meets OPRA's definition of a public agency as an instrumentality created by political subdivisions under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, given its statutory creation by municipalities, representation of all 566 municipalities, partial public funding, and other characteristics. The Court remanded to the trial court to assess whether the specific records requested by Fair Share Housing Center fall within OPRA's disclosure requirements.

procedurecivil rights

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Robert Buck sued Dr. James R. Henry after sustaining injuries from a self-inflicted gunshot wound that occurred shortly after Dr. Henry prescribed Ambien for insomnia, alleging that the doctor failed to meet the standard of care in diagnosis and treatment. The trial court dismissed the complaint on summary judgment because the plaintiff's affidavits of merit came from a psychiatrist and an emergency medicine specialist rather than a family medicine practitioner, which the defendant claimed was his relevant field, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed, holding that the Affidavit of Merit statute's purpose is to screen out frivolous claims rather than create procedural traps for valid ones. The core reasoning was that a required Ferreira case management conference, which the trial court never held, should have been used to resolve any questions about the affidavits' adequacy within the statutory deadlines, and that going forward defendant physicians must disclose their relevant specialty in their answer to avoid such confusion.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. Hess, defendant Marie Hess pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter for killing her husband, a police officer, under a plea agreement that required her to accept a thirty-year sentence with a parole disqualifier and barred her or her counsel from seeking a lesser term. At sentencing, her counsel presented no mitigating evidence regarding Battered Women's Syndrome despite possessing such information, did not object to plea restrictions on advocacy, and did not challenge a video tribute to the victim or a victim-impact statement. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that Hess was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing because the plea terms improperly limited counsel's role in violation of precedents like State v. Warren, depriving the court of relevant mitigating arguments and evidence, and because counsel failed to object to prejudicial materials. The court voided the restrictive plea terms, granted a new sentencing hearing, and allowed the State to proceed or vacate the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved John Seddon, an employee at DuPont Chambers Works, who sued the company under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) alleging retaliation for reporting safety violations related to chemical operations and security procedures. A jury awarded Seddon economic and punitive damages after finding that the retaliation caused him a mental breakdown rendering him unable to work. The Appellate Division overturned the award, holding that lost wages required proof of constructive discharge. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, ruling that under CEPA an employee can recover lost wages if the employer's unlawful retaliation proximately caused the damages, without needing to prove constructive discharge, as medical evidence showed the reprisals disabled Seddon from continued employment.

labor & employment

The case involved a negligence lawsuit filed in New Jersey by two New Jersey residents against General Dynamics-Ordnance and its employee, arising from a van accident in South Africa that caused serious injuries to the plaintiffs while they were on a work trip. Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that South Africa was the more appropriate forum. The trial court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the trial court properly weighed the relevant public- and private-interest factors and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that New Jersey was not a demonstrably inappropriate forum. The Court noted that the trial court could use its equitable powers to mitigate any disadvantages to the defendants in proceeding in New Jersey.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a slip-and-fall personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiff Tina Kieffer against Best Buy, AIC, and All Cleaning over alleged unsafe floor conditions at a store. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding no negligence or liability, but still required All Cleaning to reimburse AIC and Best Buy for defense costs under their subcontract's indemnification clause; the Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the clause obligated All Cleaning to defend and indemnify only upon a determination that its negligence, omission, or conduct caused the injuries. Without such a finding of causation by All Cleaning, no contractual duty to pay legal costs existed.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In G.D. v. Kenny, the plaintiff sued defendants for defamation, invasion of privacy, and related torts after campaign flyers in a State Senate primary election truthfully reported his 1993 drug conviction, which had been expunged in 2006. The trial court denied summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, holding that expungement does not render a prior conviction false for purposes of defamation or privacy claims, that defendants could assert truth as a defense, that the flyers were substantially accurate, and that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that had been a public record for years. The decision emphasized the strong protection for speech in political campaigns under the state constitution.

electionscriminal lawfree speechtorts & liability

The case involved defendant Laura Moran, who was convicted of reckless driving after passing stopped vehicles at an intersection without turning as required and behaving uncooperatively during the traffic stop. In addition to fines, the municipal court and Law Division imposed a 45-day license suspension under N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 for a willful violation. Defendant challenged the suspension on grounds of lack of fair notice and claimed the statute was unconstitutionally vague with excessive judicial discretion. The court held that the published statute provided adequate notice, defined willful violation, and set sentencing standards under its supervisory authority to promote uniform application, then reversed the suspension and remanded for reconsideration under the new guidelines.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Carvajal, a bus passenger suspected of drug trafficking was questioned by police after a tip and denied owning an unclaimed duffel bag, as did all other passengers; officers then searched the bag without a warrant and found heroin plus identification linking it to the defendant, leading to charges of possession with intent to distribute. The trial court and Appellate Division ruled the bag abandoned under the standards from State v. Johnson, so the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the defendant's knowing and voluntary disclaimer of any ownership interest, combined with the denials from others, proved the property was abandoned and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court applied a totality-of-the-circumstances approach to confirm abandonment by a preponderance of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Besler v. Board of Education of West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, plaintiff Philip Besler claimed that the school board violated his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by silencing him during the public comment period of a board meeting when he attempted to criticize board policy and a high school coach. A jury found that the board lacked a compelling reason to interrupt him and awarded $100,000 in damages, which the Appellate Division upheld. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the board president acted as a final policymaker for purposes of § 1983 liability and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of viewpoint discrimination. However, the court determined that the evidence of emotional distress was minimal and that the damages award was excessive, warranting remittitur or a new trial on damages.

free speechcivil rights

In State v. Kelly, a defendant was convicted in his first trial of two murders and a robbery but acquitted of related weapons possession charges; a new trial was later granted due to perjured defense testimony, leading to a second conviction as the principal offender. The defendant argued that the acquittals collaterally estopped the State from retrying him on a theory that he was the shooter, claiming a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rejection of this claim. The Court reasoned that the inconsistent verdicts from the first trial made it impossible to determine the jury's specific findings, so the acquittals did not establish as an ultimate fact that the defendant acted only as an accomplice. The Court further noted that collateral estoppel would not bar retrial in any event given the taint from the perjured testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned former New Jersey State Senator Wayne Bryant’s request for an advisory opinion allowing his campaign fund to cover legal expenses defending against federal criminal charges of corruption, fraud, and bribery. The Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) ruled that such use violated the Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act because the expenses were not “ordinary and necessary” costs of holding public office under N.J.S.A. 19:44A-11.2(a)(6). The Appellate Division upheld ELEC’s determination, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that ELEC’s interpretation was not plainly unreasonable and that legal costs for defending criminal indictments do not qualify as ordinary expenses normally incurred by officeholders. The Court distinguished these costs from permissible uses such as defending defamation suits or ethics proceedings.

electionscriminal law

The case involved a New Jersey employee who suffered severe hand injuries while operating an industrial metal shear machine manufactured by a UK company and sold through its exclusive US distributor to a New Jersey business. The plaintiff sued the foreign manufacturer in New Jersey state court on product-liability claims alleging defective design and inadequate warnings. The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Appellate Division reversed, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the manufacturer was subject to jurisdiction under the stream-of-commerce doctrine because it had targeted the entire US market through a nationwide distribution system and reasonably should have expected its products to be sold and cause injury in New Jersey. The court reaffirmed its prior precedent allowing jurisdiction when a manufacturer knows or should know of the distribution channels that place its goods in the forum state, finding this consistent with due process and traditional notions of fair play.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, two former employees sued their employer under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging retaliation and discrimination after complaining about unsafe working conditions; they were represented by Legal Services of New Jersey, a public-interest firm. The central issue was whether the ban from Coleman v. Fiore Bros. on simultaneous negotiation of the merits of a claim and statutory attorney fees should apply to public-interest counsel in CEPA and LAD cases, and whether it should continue in Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) cases. The court held that the Coleman restriction should not be extended to CEPA or LAD cases and should be abandoned even in CFA cases, allowing public-interest attorneys and defendants to negotiate merits and fees together. The core reasoning was that simultaneous negotiations would not deter competent counsel from taking such cases and would instead facilitate settlements beneficial to clients, while still prohibiting defendants from conditioning settlement on a waiver of statutory fees.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure