Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this consolidated appeal, the court examined whether internal reports and documents created after alleged adverse events at nursing and assisted living facilities are discoverable or privileged under the New Jersey Patient Safety Act (PSA). In the first case, the plaintiff, Madeline Keyworth, claimed injuries from two falls at a skilled nursing facility and sought the facility’s internal incident reports. In the second case, the plaintiffs, Suzanne and Jonathan Bender, sought an incident report regarding an alleged attack on Diane Bender by another resident at an assisted living facility. Both facilities argued that the requested materials were privileged under the PSA’s self-critical-analysis privilege.The trial courts in both cases found that the self-critical-analysis privilege did not apply and ordered the defendants to disclose the materials. The Appellate Division reversed these decisions, concluding that the defendants had complied with the PSA’s procedural requirements, thus making the documents privileged and not subject to discovery.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the cases and held that the facilities did not comply with the PSA’s procedural requirements. Specifically, the court noted that the PSA requires a patient safety committee to operate independently from any other committee within the facility. The defendants’ certifications revealed that their committees did not adhere to this requirement, as they performed dual functions related to both patient safety and quality assurance. Consequently, the court determined that the disputed documents were not privileged under the PSA and were subject to discovery.The court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded the cases to the trial courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The main holding was that the facilities’ failure to comply with the PSA’s procedural requirements meant that the self-critical-analysis privilege did not apply to the disputed documents. View "Keyworth v. CareOne at Madison Avenue" on Justia Law

The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission (Commission), a bi-state entity created by an interstate compact between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, sought to replace the I-95 Scudder Falls Bridge. The Commission decided to use a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the project, which required contractors to hire at least 75% of their workforce from specified local unions. George Harms Construction Company, Inc. (Harms), which had a collective bargaining agreement with a different union, challenged the PLA, arguing it was unlawful because it excluded their union.The trial court denied Harms' request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed Harms' counterclaims, ruling that New Jersey’s competitive bidding laws did not apply to the Commission. However, it also dismissed the Commission’s complaint, stating the lawsuit was not properly authorized by the Commission as a whole. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Commission’s complaint but reversed the dismissal of certain counterclaims, concluding that the Commission lacked authority to use a PLA because New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not have complementary or parallel laws on PLAs.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment. It held that the plain language of the Compact authorizes the Commission to require the use of a PLA in a publicly bid construction project. The Court found that the Commission’s broad powers under the Compact include the authority to use PLAs, even though the Compact does not explicitly mention them. The Court also determined that the Appellate Division erred in looking beyond the Compact to state laws that do not mention the Commission. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. George Harms Construction Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In March 2019, emergency personnel responded to a call at Arlo's home, where they found his two-year-old son, Daniel, unresponsive. Daniel was taken to the hospital and underwent emergency surgery for severe injuries, including a skull fracture and subdural hemorrhage. Arlo and his girlfriend, Tiffany, claimed Daniel had tripped and fallen. However, medical professionals found the injuries inconsistent with their account. The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) removed Daniel from Arlo's custody, and Arlo was charged with endangering the welfare of a child. A grand jury later declined to indict Arlo, and his criminal records were expunged.The Division filed a Title 9 action seeking custody of Daniel. During the proceedings, the Division sought to use Arlo's expunged criminal records, arguing they were essential for the abuse and neglect factfinding trial. The trial court granted the Division's motion, finding good cause and compelling need based on specific facts, and noting the confidential nature of the Title 9 trial. Arlo appealed, but the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the Division met the statutory requirements for using the expunged records.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the Division demonstrated good cause and compelling need based on specific facts, as the criminal and civil proceedings concerned the same incident, and the expunged records were crucial due to the lack of other witnesses and Daniel's inability to recount the incident. The Court also noted that the use of the records was limited to the Title 9 trial and subject to confidentiality protections. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. A.P." on Justia Law

In this case, a Judaic Studies teacher employed by an Orthodox Jewish school was terminated following allegations of inappropriate conduct. The school conducted an investigation and consulted with religious authorities before deciding to terminate the teacher's employment. The school then communicated this decision to the school community, stating that the teacher's conduct was deemed unacceptable and inconsistent with the school's standards.The teacher filed a lawsuit asserting several claims, including defamation. The trial court dismissed all claims, citing the ministerial exception, which bars courts from intervening in employment disputes involving religious institutions and their ministers. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, holding that the ministerial exception applied because the teacher was considered a minister and the defamation claims were related to the school's employment decision.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reaffirmed the standard set forth in McKelvey v. Pierce, which requires courts to analyze each element of a claim to determine if adjudication would interfere with a religious institution's prerogatives. The Court concluded that adjudicating the defamation claims would require an inquiry into religious law and the school's decision-making process, thus violating the First Amendment. The Court held that the ministerial exception barred the defamation claims and affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment.The Court was equally divided on whether additional discovery was necessary, but ultimately decided that further discovery would not change the constitutional analysis. Therefore, the dismissal of the defamation claims was upheld. View "Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey" on Justia Law

Brian Ambroise, a Senior Correctional Police Officer at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, faced disciplinary charges from the Department of Corrections (DOC) in December 2020. The charges included conduct unbecoming a public employee and undue familiarity with inmates, stemming from allegations that Ambroise had a sexual relationship with an inmate, J.O., and performed favors for her, such as bringing in contraband and passing messages. Ambroise admitted to kissing J.O. and failing to report it, as well as passing a message between inmates.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) modified the DOC’s penalty from removal to a twenty-day suspension, sustaining only the charge of failing to report the kiss and dismissing the others. The DOC appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which affirmed the ALJ’s finding on the failure to report but reversed the dismissal of the undue familiarity charge. The Commission imposed a six-month suspension, considering Ambroise’s previously unblemished record and the seriousness of his conduct.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the Commission’s decision to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Court held that the Commission failed to adequately consider the DOC’s expertise in maintaining prison security and the seriousness of Ambroise’s offenses. The Court emphasized that Ambroise’s failure to report the kiss and his undue familiarity with inmates compromised prison security and discipline. Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the DOC’s recommended sanction of removal, remanding the case to the Commission to redetermine the penalty in accordance with the Court’s decision. View "In the Matter of Brian Ambroise" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s daughter, Alexandrianna Lowe, who had an opioid addiction, was admitted to Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC) for complications related to Type 1 diabetes. Two days later, Lowe was found unresponsive, and hospital staff administered anti-opioid medication but failed to check her blood sugar levels. An autopsy revealed no illicit drugs in her system. Plaintiff filed a complaint against JSUMC and others, alleging negligence. At the time of filing, plaintiff had not been appointed administratrix ad prosequendum of her daughter’s estate and did not have access to Lowe’s medical records.The trial court dismissed Dr. Michael Carson from the case as he was not involved in the events leading to Lowe’s death. Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit of Merit (AOM) by Dr. Joseph Fallon, which defendants argued was insufficient because it did not name the surviving defendants, did not state that Dr. Fallon was a similarly licensed physician, and did not indicate that Dr. Fallon reviewed Lowe’s medical records. Without holding a Ferreira conference, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to submit a sufficient AOM. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that the AOM submitted by plaintiff complied with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. The Court found that the AOM statute does not require the affiant to state that they reviewed medical records or to name a specific defendant by name. The Court emphasized the importance of holding a timely and effective Ferreira conference to resolve issues related to the AOM. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, including consideration of plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add Dr. Vikas Singh as a defendant. View "Moschella v. Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs William Pace and Robert Walters leased apartments at Hamilton Cove, a complex in Weehawken, New Jersey, based on advertisements claiming 24/7 security. After moving in, they discovered that the security was not as advertised. They filed a complaint in March 2022, alleging common law fraud and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), seeking to certify a class of similarly affected tenants. The leases included a class action waiver, which defendants argued should prevent the class action. Plaintiffs contended the leases were unconscionable contracts of adhesion.The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the complaint sufficiently pled fraud. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that class action waivers in contracts without mandatory arbitration provisions are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The court distinguished this case from AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Appellate Division emphasized New Jersey's public policy favoring class actions for consumer protection.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that class action waivers in consumer contracts are not inherently contrary to public policy and can be enforceable unless found to be unconscionable or invalid under general contract principles. The Court found that the class action waiver in the lease agreements was clear and unambiguous, and the leases were not unconscionable. Therefore, the class action waiver was enforceable, and plaintiffs must pursue their claims individually. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Pace v. Hamilton Cove" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a Megan's Law registrant, R.S., who was convicted of sexually molesting his granddaughter. R.S. was sentenced to four years at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center at Avenel (Avenel) after a psychological examination concluded that his criminal sexual behavior was performed compulsively. In 2022, the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office sought to classify R.S. as a Tier Two offender (moderate risk of reoffense) and sought community notification with additional internet publication. R.S. challenged this proposal, arguing that he was never found to have engaged in “repetitive and compulsive” behavior by clear and convincing evidence as required for inclusion on the internet registry.The Megan’s Law judge ordered Tier Two community notification, including internet publication, stating that R.S. would not have been eligible to serve his sentence at Avenel if he was not found to be repetitive and compulsive. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, determining that the Megan’s Law judge correctly found, based on clear and convincing evidence, that R.S.’s conduct was compulsive and repetitive.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(b)(2), a Megan’s Law registrant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the registrant demonstrates that there exists a genuine issue of material fact about whether the registrant’s conduct is characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior. The State may rely on an earlier psychological report that had been prepared pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3, but the independent findings by a Megan’s Law judge as to compulsivity and repetitiveness must be based on clear and convincing evidence. The judgment of the Appellate Division was vacated as to the single issue before the Court and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Registrant R.S." on Justia Law

The case involves Alejandra Padilla, who tripped, fell, and suffered serious injuries while walking on a public sidewalk abutting a vacant commercial lot in Camden, New Jersey. The lot was owned by Young Il An and Myo Soon An. Padilla sued the owners for negligence, claiming that their failure to maintain the sidewalk caused her fall and consequent injuries. The owners moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not owe her a duty of care.The trial court granted the owners' motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the owner of a non-income producing vacant commercial lot has no duty to the public to maintain the lot’s abutting sidewalk in a safe condition.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that all commercial landowners, including owners of vacant commercial lots, have a duty to maintain the public sidewalks abutting their property in reasonably good condition and are liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their negligent failure to do so. The court reasoned that the moment an individual or an entity purchases a lot in a commercially zoned area, the purchaser has begun a commercial endeavor and intends to make money. Therefore, it is not unreasonable or unfair for such an individual to have to factor liability insurance into the cost of embarking on the journey of their commercial endeavor. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Padilla v. Young Il An" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Patrick Boyle, a trustee and unit owner of the Ocean Club Condominium (OC Condominium), and the Ocean Club Condominium Association (Association). After a disagreement over the Association's financial management, the Board of Trustees (Board) expelled Boyle. Boyle filed a complaint challenging his removal and sought indemnification for his legal fees and costs based on a provision in the Association's bylaws. The trial court reinstated Boyle as a trustee and held that the bylaws entitled Boyle to counsel fees and costs. Boyle later filed an amended complaint, adding additional claims including for indemnification, and a third amended complaint, bringing a derivative claim on behalf of the Association and alleging that the trustee defendants breached their fiduciary duties.The trial court ruled in Boyle's favor, holding that the bylaws entitled him to counsel fees and costs. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision but limited the indemnification to the fees and costs Boyle incurred in his action to be reinstated as trustee, not in his derivative action claim.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's judgment. The court found the indemnification provision in the Association's bylaws to be ambiguous and, therefore, strictly construed it against Boyle, the indemnitee. The court held that the provision did not cover Boyle's first-party claim for attorneys' fees and costs against the Association. The court clarified that while indemnification may apply to first-party claims if that is the clear intent of the parties, any ambiguity will be construed against the indemnitee. The court encouraged parties seeking to permit indemnification of first-party claims to include express language to do so. View "Boyle v. Huff" on Justia Law