Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether a law firm practicing as a limited liability partnership (LLP) failed to maintain professional malpractice insurance to cover claims against it, and, if so, whether that failure should cause the revocation of the firm's LLP status, rendering innocent partners personally liable. In July 2009, Mortgage Grader hired Olivo of Ward & Olivo (W&O) to pursue claims of patent infringement against other entities. Mortgage Grader entered into settlement agreements in those matters. In exchange for one-time settlement payments, Mortgage Grader granted those defendant-entities licenses under the patents, including perpetual rights to any patents Mortgage Grader received or obtained through assignment, regardless of their relationship to the patents at issue in the litigation. It is those provisions of the settlement agreement that allegedly gave rise to legal malpractice. In 2011, W&O dissolved and entered into its windup period. W&O continued to exist as a partnership for the sole purpose of collecting outstanding legal fees and paying taxes. The next day, Ward formed a new LLP and began to practice with a new partner. Mortgage Grader filed a complaint against W&O, Olivo, and Ward in October 2012, alleging legal malpractice by Olivo, and claiming that the settlement agreements resulting from Olivo's representation harmed Mortgage Grader's patent rights. The motion court denied Ward's motion to dismiss, first determining that Mortgage Grader had failed to comply with the statutory requirement to serve an affidavit of merit (AOM) on each defendant named in the complaint, and rejected its substantial compliance argument. However, the court also determined that W&O failed to maintain the requisite insurance, which caused its liability shield to lapse and relegated W&O to a GP. Thus, the motion court concluded that Ward could be held vicariously liable for Olivo's alleged legal malpractice. The Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that law firms organized as LLPs that malpractice insurance did not extend to the firm's windup period, and tail insurance coverage was not required. View "Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, L.L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tonique Griffin, Virginia Best and Rosalyn Walker, employees of the City of East Orange, alleged that they were sexually harassed by a supervisor. In the wake of plaintiffs' internal reports of the alleged harassment, the City retained an attorney to conduct an investigation of their claims. Corletta Hicks an aide to the City's then-Mayor, Robert Bowser, and a close friend of Griffin, made statements to the investigator that undermined Griffin's allegations and supported the credibility of the alleged harasser. The investigator relied in part on Hicks's statements in rejecting plaintiffs' contention that, by virtue of the supervisor's harassment, they were subjected to a hostile work environment. Plaintiffs filed complaints under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. During discovery, Hicks testified at her deposition that Mayor Bowser spoke with her before she was interviewed by the investigator, directing her to make negative comments about Griffin and to praise the supervisor accused of harassment, and that pursuant to his instructions, she provided the investigator with misleading information. The trial court barred Hicks from testifying at trial on the ground that her proposed testimony was irrelevant to plaintiffs' claims. The court granted a directed verdict dismissing some of plaintiffs' claims, and the jury rejected the remaining claims. An Appellate Division panel affirmed the trial court's judgment. After its review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred when it barred plaintiffs from presenting Hicks' testimony to the jury. Mayor Bowser's alleged instructions to Hicks were directly pertinent to plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and punitive damages arising from hostile work environment sexual harassment, and therefore met the relevancy standard of N.J.R.E. 401. The hearsay statements attributed to Mayor Bowser constituted statements by a party's agent or servant offered against the party, and were thus within the exception to the hearsay rule prescribed by N.J.R.E. 803(b)(4). The Court therefore reversed the Appellate Division's judgment affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for hostile work environment sexual harassment, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial on those claims. We affirm the Appellate Division's judgment with respect to plaintiffs remaining claims. View "Griffin v. City of East Orange" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Robert Smith was a certified emergency medical technician and paramedic associated with defendant Millville Rescue Squad (MRS), which provided medical transportation and rescue services. Plaintiff started off as a volunteer, but assumed a paid position in January 1996. At the time of his termination in February 2006, plaintiff served as Director of Operations until June 1998. Plaintiff s direct supervisor was co-defendant John Redden, MRS's Chief Executive Officer. Plaintiff's wife at the time, Mary, was also employed by MRS, as were her mother and two sisters. In early 2005, plaintiff commenced an extramarital affair with an MRS volunteer, who was supervised directly by plaintiff. In June 2005, Mary learned of plaintiff's affair and reported it to Redden. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff informed Redden of the affair. The MRS volunteer left MRS in 2005, but the affair continued, leading to irreconcilable discord between plaintiff and Mary. On January 1, 2006, plaintiff moved out of the marital home. On January 2, 2006, plaintiff informed Redden that his marriage to Mary had collapsed. According to plaintiff's testimony, Redden thanked plaintiff for keeping him informed and asked to be notified of any developments regarding his marital status. When informed that plaintiff would divorce, he was terminated. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review addressed the scope of the marital status protection afforded to employees by the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). After review, the Court held that the LAD protected all employees who have declared that they will marry, have separated from a spouse, have initiated divorce proceedings, or have obtained a divorce from discrimination in the workplace. Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employer harbored discriminatory animus against divorcing employees and that this animus bore directly on the decision to terminate plaintiff s employment. The trial court therefore erred when it dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiff's case. View "Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad" on Justia Law

In May 2013, plaintiffs Annemarie Morgan and Tiffany Dever filed suit against defendants Sanford Brown Institute, its parent company, Career Education Corporation, and Sanford Brown's chief executive officer, admission and financial aid officers, and clinical director. Sanford Brown was a private, for-profit educational institution with a campus in Trevose, Pennsylvania, that offered medical-related training programs. In the complaint, plaintiffs claimed that defendants misrepresented the value of the school's ultrasound technician program and the quality of its instructors, instructed students on outdated equipment and with inadequate teaching materials, provided insufficient career-service counseling, and conveyed inaccurate information about Sanford Brown's accreditation status. The complaint further alleged that Sanford Brown employed high-pressure and deceptive business tactics that resulted in plaintiffs financing their education with high-interest loans, passing up the study of ultrasound at a reputable college, and losing career advancement opportunities. The Sanford Brown enrollment agreement included payment terms for tuition and fees, disclaimers, and an arbitration provision. Without answering the complaint, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. The Appellate Division found the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed an arbitrator would determine issues of arbitrability and that plaintiffs failed to specifically attack the delegation clause. The panel therefore determined that arbitrability [was] for the arbitrator to decide. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Appellate Division and trial court did not have the benefit of "Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp.," (219 N.J. 430, 436 (2014), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2804, 192 L. Ed.2d 847 (2015)) at the time they rendered their decisions. The New Jersey Court held in "Atalese" that an arbitration provision in a consumer contract that fails to explain in some minimal way that arbitration is a substitute for a consumer s right to pursue relief in a court of law was unenforceable. This case was therefore remanded for further proceedings in light of Atalese. View "Morgan v. Sanford Brown Institute" on Justia Law

The issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court in this case was whether the 2011 suspension of State pension cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) contravened a term of the contract right granted under the earlier enacted non-forfeitable right statute, L.1997, c.113 (codified as N.J.S.A.43:3C-9.5). Qualifying members of the State's public pension systems or funds were granted a non-forfeitable right to receive benefits as provided under the laws governing the retirement system or fund. By codifying that non-forfeitable right to receive benefits, the Legislature provided that the benefits program, for any employee for whom the right has attached, could not be reduced. Whether COLAs were part of the benefits program protected by N.J.S.A. 43:3C-9.5 depended on whether the Legislature, in enacting N.J.S.A. 43:3C-9.5(a) and (b), intended to create a contractual right to COLAs. The Supreme Court found in this instance, proof of unequivocal intent to create a non-forfeitable right to yet-unreceived COLAs was lacking. Although both plaintiff retirees and the State advanced plausible arguments on that question, "the lack of such unmistakable legislative intent dooms plaintiffs' position." The Court concluded that the Legislature retained its inherent sovereign right to act in its best judgment of the public interest and to pass legislation suspending further COLAs. Having determined that there was no contract violation, and because the additional arguments advanced by plaintiffs were not meritorious, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment holding to the contrary. View "Berg v. Christie" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Sofia Torres alleged that she was seriously injured in a rear-end collision between her car and a garbage truck owned by defendant Suburban Disposal, Inc., and operated by defendant Javier Pabon. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of defendants negligent maintenance of the truck s taillights, she was unaware that the truck was ahead of her. She contended that Pabon drove negligently, causing the collision. Defendants denied plaintiff's allegations and asserted that plaintiff's own negligence caused the accident. The case was tried before a jury, which found both parties negligent but allocated fifty-five percent of the fault to defendants, and awarded a substantial verdict. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment. The New Jersey Supreme Court found too many errors at trial, reversed and remanded for a new trial. First, the trial court improperly directed the jury to consider drawing an adverse inference against defendants from Pabon s failure to testify after plaintiff presented Pabon's deposition testimony to the jury. Second, the trial court permitted plaintiff to read to the jury requests for admissions, served by plaintiff immediately before trial, which improperly sought defendants admissions to medical opinions offered by one of their expert witnesses. Third, the trial court erroneously issued a second "Clawans" charge, again authorizing the jury to draw an adverse inference against defendants because they decided not to call their expert as a witness. Fourth, the trial court made significant errors in its jury instruction regarding the duty of a driver to maintain a safe distance behind another driver. Finally, notwithstanding plaintiff's testimony before the jury that she had significant medical bills and lacked the resources to pay them, the trial court failed to instruct the jury that plaintiff was not entitled to medical expenses as an element of damages, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. View "Torres v. Pabon" on Justia Law

Defendant, a massage therapist, was charged with sexually assaulting a customer (E.S.) while giving her a massage. E.S. alleged that after defendant massaged her back, he lifted the privacy cover as E.S. turned beneath it, and began massaging her front side. While massaging E.S.'s right thigh, defendant asked if he could continue to massage E.S. further up her leg. E.S. told him no. Defendant continued to massage the area, slightly higher and higher. Defendant repeated the action, at which point E.S. opened her eyes; defendant had one hand on her head, one hand in her vagina, and was exposing himself to her. Defendant asked E.S. to perform oral sex on him, which E.S. refused. E.S. later reported the sexual assault to a spa manager. Defendant was arrested and taken to police headquarters to be interviewed. He denied any sexual contact with E.S., stating that nothing out of the ordinary happened during [the] massage. A grand jury charged defendant with one count of second-degree sexual assault and one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. Prior to defendant's trial, the State moved under N.J.R.E.404(b) to admit extrinsic evidence of a prior incident in which defendant had been charged with, but ultimately acquitted of, sexually assaulting a female spa customer in Florida. At the hearing on the State's motion, A.W., the alleged victim, testified about the alleged prior assault. A.W. s description shared certain similarities with E.S.'s experience, including that defendant lifted the sheet as A.W. turned from lying face down to lying on her back, just as defendant did with E.S. The trial court found the evidence admissible under N.J.R.E.404(b), even though defendant had been acquitted of the prior crime. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision, finding the evidence inadmissible. The State appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed insofar as the Appellate Division held that the evidence of defendant's prior sexual assault in Florida was inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) because it failed to satisfy the four-factor test established in "New Jersey v. Cofield," (127 N.J. 328 (1992)). The Court declined to adopt, however, the appellate panel's bright-line rule that evidence of a prior crime for which a defendant was acquitted is always inadmissible, or the panel's reformulation of the instruction provided to jurors governing the circumstances under which it may give any weight to acquitted-crime evidence. View "New Jersey v. J.M., Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant Bobby Perry was charged with sexually and physically assaulting a woman he had been casually dating. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion under the New Jersey Rape Shield Law to admit DNA evidence of an unidentified semen stain, which did not belong to defendant, found on the shorts that the victim was wearing on the night of the assault. Although it was never determined to whom the semen belonged or when it was left on the victim's shorts, defendant argued that the evidence supported his defense that the victim was still romantically involved with her ex-boyfriend, providing motive for the ex-boyfriend to assault the victim and for the victim to fabricate the charges. The trial court denied defendant's motion, finding that the DNA evidence was irrelevant to defendant's theory of third-party guilt, precluded by the Rape Shield Law, and, in any event, inadmissible because the low probative value of the evidence [wa]s substantially outweighed by a danger of prejudice. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual assault and third-degree aggravated assault. In a split decision, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the DNA evidence was relevant to prove defendant's theory that the victim s ex-boyfriend perpetrated the assault and was, therefore, admissible. The dissent, conversely, concluded that the trial court properly applied the Rape Shield Law to exclude [the DNA] evidence proffered by defendant that served only to establish that the victim engaged in sex with an unknown third party. After review, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the semen found on the victim's shorts constituted inadmissible evidence of sexual conduct within the meaning of the Rape Shield Law, and was not relevant to defendant's third-party guilt defense. The Court therefore, reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstated defendant's convictions. View "New Jersey v. Perry" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the admission of other-crime evidence, pursuant to N.J.R.E. 404(b), of an attempted sexual assault that occurred three years before the sexual assault that was the subject of defendant Richard Willis' trial. The victim, K.M., was a twenty-two-year-old prostitute who readily admitted that she had performed various sex acts with men other than the defendant the day of the alleged sexual assault, but denied that she had consensual sexual relations with defendant. Defendant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the victim but insisted that K.M. had consented. Prior to trial, the State informed the trial court and defense counsel that it would seek to introduce evidence of an attempted sexual assault against another young woman, N.J., that had occurred three years before the alleged sexual assault against K.M. The State noted that the central issue in its case was whether K.M. consented to sexual relations with defendant because the forensic evidence clearly established that they had engaged in sexual relations that evening. The State maintained that N.J.'s experience provided relevant and probative evidence of defendant's intent when he encountered K.M. A jury found defendant guilty of third-degree criminal restraint, second-degree sexual assault, and the disorderly persons offense of simple assault. The Supreme Court reviewed this case and concluded that the "marginal relevance of a three-year-old attempted sexual assault against N.J. could not overcome the manifest prejudice of that evidence. It should not have been admitted. The error was compounded by the quality and quantity of the other-crime evidence introduced at trial that could have been interpreted by the jury only as evidence that defendant had a propensity to commit sexual offenses against young women he encountered on the street." The Appellate Division's judgment was reversed. View "New Jersey v. Willis" on Justia Law

Defendant Lee Funderburg had a romantic relationship with Terra Andrews, which resulted in the birth of a son. After the relationship ended, defendant and Andrews shared parenting responsibilities for their child. Later, Andrews began dating Leno Parham. After Andrews and Parham had been dating for about one year, Parham and defendant developed a somewhat tense relationship, and the two exchanged angry words. Defendant and Parham did not interact again until early 2009, when Andrews and Parham arrived at defendant's house to pick up the baby. As Parham buckled the baby into his car seat, defendant reached into Andrews's parked car and took the keys out of the ignition. Andrews and defendant began arguing, and Parham intervened on Andrews's behalf. Parham chased defendant for ten to fifteen minutes in an effort to reclaim the keys. At some point, defendant brandished a knife. After giving up the chase, Parham leaned against the car, at which point defendant lunged at him and punched him several times in the chest. Defendant's father and brother (who were nearby) intervened to separate the men. When Parham stepped away, he realized he had been stabbed and immediately sought medical attention. He sustained life-threatening injuries and underwent major surgery but survived. Defendant was arrested and charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault, as well as related weapons charges. At trial, defense counsel's theory of the case was that defendant pulled out a knife after Parham began chasing him because defendant was fearful and wanted the chase to stop. Defense counsel asserted that defendant did not intentionally stab Parham when he lunged at him; rather, he contended that Parham was accidentally stabbed during a chaotic struggle for control of the knife. The jury found defendant guilty on all counts. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted passion/provocation manslaughter, and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that defendant was not entitled to the lesser-included jury instruction. In particular, the Court found insufficient evidence before the jury to demonstrate that a reasonable person in Funderburg's position would have been adequately provoked by Parham's behavior. View "New Jersey v. Funderburg" on Justia Law