Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2019 and have one son together. Plaintiff moved out of the marital home in January 2023 and initiated divorce proceedings in March 2023. In April 2023, defendant was arrested and charged with weapon offenses after threatening a process server with a handgun. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint in July 2023 under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on allegations of stalking and harassment. The court issued a TRO prohibiting defendant from contacting plaintiff, granting her temporary custody of their son, and denying defendant parenting and visitation time.During the final restraining order (FRO) hearing, plaintiff called defendant as a witness. Defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but the trial court ordered him to testify. Defendant refused to answer questions beyond stating his name, invoking the Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled that defendant could not invoke the privilege and that an adverse inference could be drawn from his refusal to testify. Defendant appealed the decision.The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal. While defendant's motion for leave to appeal was pending, the Appellate Division published T.B. v. I.W., addressing a similar issue. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted defendant leave to appeal.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that while the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity in PDVA FRO hearings, a defendant may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific questions that pose reasonable risks of self-incrimination. The court ruled that no adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of this right. The PDVA immunity provision in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a) is not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and does not adequately protect a defendant's rights. The trial court's ruling was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "M.A. v. J.H.M." on Justia Law

The Borough of Englewood Cliffs filed a complaint and an amended complaint against its former attorneys and a builder, alleging professional malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The Borough's actions followed a previous affordable housing litigation where the Borough did not prevail and subsequently settled with the builder. The Borough's new council, elected after a municipal election, pursued the litigation despite warnings from the defendants that the claims were frivolous.The trial court dismissed the Borough's complaints with prejudice, finding that the Borough acted in bad faith to harass, delay, and cause malicious injury. The court awarded the defendants attorney fees and costs under New Jersey’s Frivolous Litigation Statute (FLS), totaling $216,484.45. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that a public entity is not immune from sanctions under the FLS.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that municipalities and municipal corporations that engage in frivolous litigation are subject to sanctions under the FLS. The Court found that the FLS does not provide immunity to municipalities and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not protect municipalities from liability under the FLS. The Court emphasized that the FLS aims to deter frivolous litigation and compensate the victims of such actions. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed as modified, holding the Borough liable for the sanctions imposed. View "Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner" on Justia Law

John Bragg was involved in a violent altercation with Lorenza Fletcher and Daquan Anderson in an apartment in Trenton, New Jersey. Bragg claimed he had an informal sublease and had been living in the apartment for a few weeks. During the fight, all three adults sustained serious injuries, and Bragg was arrested. He was later indicted on nineteen counts, including attempted murder and kidnapping. At trial, Bragg claimed self-defense, stating that Fletcher and Anderson initiated the fight, while they testified that Bragg was the aggressor.The trial court did not instruct the jury on the "castle doctrine," which states that a person does not have to retreat from their dwelling unless they were the initial aggressor. The jury found Bragg guilty of twelve counts, including attempted murder and kidnapping. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions, concluding that the failure to instruct on the castle doctrine was not plain error and that the evidence did not support a finding of self-defense.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case, focusing on whether the failure to instruct the jury on the castle doctrine constituted plain error. The Court found that the jury should have been instructed on the exception to the duty to retreat, as there was evidence suggesting the apartment could be considered Bragg's dwelling and conflicting testimony on who the initial aggressor was. The Court held that the failure to provide this instruction was capable of producing an unjust result and constituted plain error.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's judgment, vacated Bragg's convictions on counts involving self-defense, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The other counts of conviction, for which self-defense was not a possible defense, remained intact. View "State v. Bragg" on Justia Law

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) solicited bids for a contract to repair bridges in the Newark Bay area. El Sol Contracting & Construction Corp. (El Sol) submitted the lowest bid, but the NJTA rejected it because the bid documents did not include a validly executed Consent of Surety (CoS) from Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Liberty). The CoS was signed by an attorney-in-fact whose Power of Attorney (PoA) only authorized her to sign the Proposal Bond, not the CoS. The NJTA awarded the contract to the second-lowest bidder, Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc.The Appellate Division reversed the NJTA’s decision, interpreting the bid specifications to require that the PoA be tethered only to the Proposal Bond, not the CoS. The court concluded that Liberty’s offer to modify the PoA language addressed the NJTA’s concerns and that the NJTA’s rejection of El Sol’s bid was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that the NJTA did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable manner when it rejected El Sol’s bid. The court emphasized that the CoS is a critical component of the bidding process and must be validly executed. Since the PoA did not authorize the attorney-in-fact to sign the CoS, El Sol’s bid was incomplete. The court also noted that the NJTA’s past acceptance of similar documents did not estop it from rejecting El Sol’s bid once the defect was identified. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, upholding the NJTA’s rejection of El Sol’s bid. View "In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638" on Justia Law

Clarios, LLC (Clarios) purchased an industrial site in 2006, for which the seller had executed a remediation plan under the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) and placed funds in trust for future remediation. In 2007, Clarios ceased operations and sought a Remediation in Progress Waiver (RIP Waiver) from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which was granted with the condition that the DEP reserved the right to enforce ISRA obligations in the future. Clarios sold the site in 2011, and the new owner, DeNovo, assumed remediation responsibilities. By 2021, the remediation trust was depleted, and the site was out of compliance. In April 2022, the DEP rescinded Clarios’s RIP Waiver due to non-compliance and depletion of funds.Clarios requested an adjudicatory hearing, arguing that the rescission without notice or a hearing violated its due process rights. The DEP denied the request, stating that rescission did not entitle Clarios to a hearing under the relevant regulations. Clarios appealed, and the Appellate Division ruled in favor of the DEP, holding that Clarios did not have a protected property interest in the RIP Waiver. The court found that Clarios’s expectation of continued suspension of remediation obligations was not based on any statutory or regulatory provisions but rather on a unilateral expectation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that the DEP’s initial grant of the RIP Waiver did not create a property interest in the continued suspension of Clarios’s remediation obligations. The Court found that neither the controlling statutes and regulations nor a mutually explicit understanding between the parties provided an entitlement to the indefinite continuance of the waiver. The governing laws and agency materials anticipated the DEP’s ability to enforce remediation obligations in the future, and thus, rescission of the RIP Waiver without a hearing did not violate Clarios’s due process rights. View "In re Appeal of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's September 6, 2022 Denial of Request for Adjudicatory Hearing" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among members of several limited liability companies, which was arbitrated according to the parties' agreement. The arbitrator issued a series of awards, ultimately granting plaintiff Laurence Rappaport $4.9 million on various claims, offset by an award to defendant Kenneth Pasternak, resulting in a net award of approximately $3.8 million. The arbitrator did not award Rappaport damages for the loss of future distributions of carried interest. Rappaport contended that the issue of carried interest was not presented to the arbitrator and that the arbitrator improperly ruled on it.The Chancery Division confirmed the arbitrator's awards after remanding for clarification that the arbitrator intended to resolve the issue of carried interest. Rappaport appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the awards for Rappaport’s claims for lost income and future income based on his termination as a manager. However, the Appellate Division ruled that the parties had excluded the question of carried interest from the arbitration and concluded that the arbitrator had raised the issue sua sponte. It modified the awards to exclude any inclusion of Rappaport’s membership interest, including future carried interest, and reversed the Chancery Division’s judgment.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and disagreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion. The Court found that the issue of carried interest was arbitrable and had been raised by the parties at several stages of the arbitration. The Court held that the remedy of modification under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a)(2) was not warranted and that the Appellate Division’s review did not conform to the deferential standard governing judicial review of arbitration awards. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the Chancery Division’s decision confirming the arbitration award. View "Rappaport v. Pasternak" on Justia Law

Rosalyn Musker worked in sales for Suuchi, Inc., which sells software subscriptions to apparel manufacturers. In addition to her base salary, Musker was eligible for commissions under Suuchi’s Sales Commission Plan (SCP). In March 2020, Suuchi decided to sell Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) on a commission basis due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Musker generated approximately $34,448,900 in gross revenue by selling PPE. The parties disputed whether her 4% commission was based on gross or net revenue and whether these commissions were considered "wages" under the Wage Payment Law (WPL) or excluded as "supplementary incentives."The trial judge dismissed Musker’s WPL claims, holding that her PPE commissions were not "wages" under the WPL. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, agreeing that the commissions were "supplementary incentives" and not "wages" under the WPL. Musker appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case. The Court held that under the WPL, "wages" are defined as "direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or commission basis." The Court concluded that compensating an employee by paying a "commission" for "labor or services" always constitutes a wage under the WPL. Therefore, a "commission" cannot be excluded from the definition of "wages" as a "supplementary incentive."The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment, vacated the trial judge’s order dismissing Musker’s WPL claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that Musker’s PPE commissions are "wages" under the WPL, regardless of whether they are based on gross or net revenue, and that receiving a base salary does not turn "commissions" into "supplementary incentives." View "Musker v. Suuchi, Inc." on Justia Law

Crystal Walcott Spill's estate and beneficiaries filed a wrongful death suit against several doctors, including Dr. Steven Paganessi and his medical group, alleging negligence during a surgical procedure that led to Spill's death. Spill, who had lupus, was under the care of Dr. Jenny Diep, a New York-based rheumatologist, and Dr. Jacob Markovitz, a New Jersey-based gynecologist. Before the surgery, Dr. Diep increased Spill's blood pressure medication dosage and recommended she see a nephrologist. Spill saw Dr. Holly Koncicki, a New York-based nephrologist, who conducted lab tests but did not receive the results before the surgery. Spill suffered a cardiac event during the procedure and died the same day. The lab results, available after her death, showed critically elevated creatinine and potassium levels.The trial court dismissed Dr. Diep from the case due to lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the defendants' motion to include her on the verdict form for fault allocation. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that an out-of-state individual over whom New Jersey courts lack personal jurisdiction cannot be included for fault allocation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, with modifications. The Court held that an individual outside New Jersey's jurisdiction is not a "party" under the Comparative Negligence Act (CNA) for fault allocation purposes. However, such an individual may be considered a joint tortfeasor under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law (JTCL), allowing defendants to seek contribution in a relevant jurisdiction if a judgment is rendered against them. The Court did not agree with the Appellate Division's view that the model civil jury instruction on causation mitigates any unfairness to the defendants. View "Estate of Spill v. Markovitz" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, D.T., alleged that he was sexually abused by Michael J. McCarthy, a priest assigned by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, during an overnight trip to a private home in New Jersey in 1971. D.T. claimed that McCarthy, who was a family friend and mentor, used his position as a priest to gain the trust of D.T.'s mother and take him on the trip where the abuse occurred. The Archdiocese, which operates in Pennsylvania, argued that it did not own property or conduct business in New Jersey at the time of the alleged incident.The trial court granted the Archdiocese's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division twice remanded the case for jurisdictional discovery and consideration of the Archdiocese's past ownership of property in New Jersey. After the second remand, the trial court again granted the motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no basis for personal jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that D.T. had not demonstrated that the Archdiocese's supervisory authority over McCarthy established the minimum contacts with New Jersey necessary to exercise specific jurisdiction under Fourteenth Amendment due process principles. The Court found that the Archdiocese did not purposefully avail itself of conducting activities in New Jersey and that McCarthy's actions were not directed by the Archdiocese. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, concluding that there was no basis for New Jersey to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese in this case. View "D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Michael Jones purchased Series EE federal savings bonds during his marriage to Jeanine Jones, designating her as the pay-on-death beneficiary. Upon their divorce, their divorce settlement agreement (DSA) did not specifically address the savings bonds but included a provision that any marital asset not listed would belong to the party currently in possession. The DSA also required Michael to pay Jeanine $200,000 in installments. After Michael's death, Jeanine redeemed the savings bonds and filed a creditor’s claim against Michael’s Estate for the remaining $100,000 owed under the DSA. The Estate argued that the redemption of the savings bonds satisfied Michael’s financial obligations to Jeanine.The trial court agreed with the Estate, ruling that the savings bonds counted towards Michael’s $200,000 obligation under the DSA and dismissed Jeanine’s claim for reimbursement. Jeanine appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds preempted state law, and Jeanine was the sole owner of the bonds at Michael’s death. Therefore, the value of the redeemed bonds should not be credited towards the Estate’s obligations under the DSA.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that preemption was not an issue because N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 does not conflict with federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds. The Court found that the DSA did not direct the disposition of the savings bonds, and thus, the bonds should not be credited against Michael’s $200,000 obligation. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment as modified, ruling that the Estate must make the remaining payments to Jeanine as required by the DSA. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Jones" on Justia Law