Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Under the New Jersey Affidavit of Merit statute, plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must provide an affidavit from an equivalently credentialed physician attesting that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant physician’s treatment fell outside acceptable professional standards. Plaintiff Robert Buck sued defendant Dr. James Henry, who had diagnosed Buck as suffering from depression and insomnia and prescribed an anti-depressant and a sleep aid. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Henry failed to properly treat him. In March 2009, Plaintiff provided an affidavit of merit signed by Dr. Larry Kirstein, a licensed psychiatrist, who concluded that Dr. Henry’s treatment fell outside acceptable standards. In April 2009, due to a clerical error, the trial court mistakenly issued an order stating that “all issues involving the Affidavit of Merit statute have been addressed” and “there is no need” for a Ferreira conference. Dr. Henry moved for summary judgment, claiming that the affidavits were not from equivalent specialists. The court found that Dr. Henry was a family-medicine specialist based on his certification and, thus, Plaintiff was required to obtain an affidavit from a specialist in family medicine. The court therefore granted Dr. Henry’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate and trial courts and remanded a Ferreira conference. The Court found Plaintiff acted in good faith in filing affidavits of merit from two different medical specialists; and if the conference had been conducted as required and the trial court found deficiencies, Plaintiff would have had additional time to submit an affidavit that conformed to the merit statute. View "Buck v. Henry" on Justia Law

In 2006, Plaintiff J.D. and Defendant M.D.F. terminated a long-term relationship that resulted in the birth of two children. J.D. continued to live in the house the parties had purchased, along with the children, and she became involved in a new relationship with a boyfriend, R.T. In 2009, J.D. filed a domestic violence complaint. The complaint alleged that J.D. and R.T. observed M.D.F. outside of J.D.’s residence to harass her. When asked about the incident, M.D.F. requested that R.T. be sequestered and that he be given an opportunity to question him. After the court sequestered R.T., M.D.F. did not deny that he had gone to the residence and had taken pictures, but claimed that his purpose was not harassment, but to obtain evidence to support a motion to transfer custody. The court found that line of attack irrelevant and, without allowing M.D.F. to question R.T., granted a Final Restraining Order. As explained by the court, M.D.F. conceded that he had been taking pictures and, in light of the nature of the earlier incidents, his acts constituted harassment. The Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether M.D.F.'s due process rights were violated during the proceedings that resulted in the Final Restraining Order. The Court found that the trial court failed to sufficiently articulate its findings and conclusions, and the record contained insufficient evidence to sustain the Final Restraining Order. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for a re-hearing to protect M.D.F.’s due process rights and to permit the trial court to evaluate the testimony and the evidence. View "J.D. v. M.D.F." on Justia Law

New Jersey uses a three-factor formula to calculate a multi-state corporation’s New Jersey Corporate Business Tax (CBT) by apportioning income between New Jersey and the rest of the world. For taxpayers with regular places of business outside of New Jersey, the portion of entire net worth and entire net income that is subject to New Jersey tax is determined by multiplying each by an allocation factor that is the sum of the property fraction, the payroll fraction, and two times the sales fraction, divided by four. The sales fraction is at issue in this case. Without the "Throw-Out Rule," the sales fraction is calculated by dividing the taxpayer’s receipts (sales of tangible personal property, services, and all other business receipts) in New Jersey by total receipts. The Throw-Out Rule increases a corporation’s New Jersey tax liability by “throwing out” sales receipts that are not taxed by other jurisdictions from the denominator of the sales fraction. This always increases the sales fraction, causing the apportionment formula and resulting CBT to increase. Whirlpool Properties, Inc. appealed its assessment from 2002, arguing that the Throw-Out Rule was unconstitutional. Upon review of the applicable legal authorities, the Supreme Court held that corporate taxpayers having a substantial nexus to New Jersey may constitutionally apply the Throw-Out Rule to untaxed receipts from states that lack jurisdiction to tax it due to an insufficient connection with the corporation but not to receipts that are untaxed because a state chooses not to impose an income tax. View "Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Div. of Taxation" on Justia Law

A Union County Grand Jury indicted the two defendants for first-degree murder, third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit, and second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose. After closing his bar, Luis Lecaros proceeded to drive home several of his employees in his pickup truck, including Sandra Narvarro and his son Paul. At some point, Luis’ truck slid on the rain-slicked road and slammed into the rear of a black Honda, shattering its back window and causing its rear bumper to fall off. The State’s theory was that Defendant Timyan Cabbell was driving the Honda and that Defendant John Calhoun was a passenger. Immediately after the collision, Cabbell and Calhoun, armed with handguns, opened fire on the pickup truck, and then fled in the Honda. The central issue at trial was the identification of the shooters. Two key State witnesses gave statements to police about the shooting, but in front of the jury, neither wished to testify. Because the witnesses insisted they did not wish to testify, the trial court conducted a Rule 104 hearing outside the presence of the jury. At this point, neither Defendant was given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses before the jury. The witnesses' out-of-court statements were deemed admissible under a hearsay exception. The primary issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was whether Defendants were provided an opportunity to cross examine the State's key witnesses consistent with the Confrontation Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that both defendants were denied their federal and state constitutional rights to confront one of the two key witnesses before the jury. For that reason, that witness' out-of-court statement to the police incriminating Defendants should not have been read to the jury and the admission of that statement was not harmless error. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. Cabbell" on Justia Law

Defendant New Community Corporation appealed judgments in favor of Plaintiff Pomerantz Paper Corporation stemming from a breach of contract claim. Pomerantz appealed a judgment in favor of New Community on a counterclaim that held that Pomerantz engaged in unconscionable business practices as defined by the state Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) stemming from the same contract. According to New Community, items regularly were missing from shipments. In 2000, New Community began to question the invoices and prices Pomerantz charged. By 2004, Pomerantz claimed that New Community had failed to pay invoices totaling approximately $700,000, and it filed a claim for breach of contract. New Community filed a counterclaim asserting that Pomerantz engaged in unconscionable business practices in violation of the CFA. Upon review of the contract, the parties' business dealings and the trial court's record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s findings that were central to its evaluation of the New Community's Consumer Fraud Act counterclaim failed for want of sufficient credible evidence in the record, and that the appellate panel erred in deferring to those findings and, by extension, in affirming the trial court’s conclusions. Furthermore, the appellate panel erred in its analysis of the seller’s breach of contract claim by imposing a duty of written notice of non-delivery on the buyer that is found neither in the Uniform Commercial Code nor in the course of dealing between the parties. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Community Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant Marie Hess shot and killed her husband Jimmy Hess, a police officer. Defendant entered into a plea agreement in which she pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter; acknowledged that she would receive a thirty-year sentence; conceded that aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors as to make the term appropriate; agreed that neither she nor her attorney would affirmatively seek a lesser term of imprisonment; and agreed not to appeal her conviction. The plea agreement did not bind the court to give any particular sentence, and nothing in the plea agreement denied defense counsel the opportunity to provide mitigating evidence. Defendant did not pursue a direct appeal. Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) claiming that she was denied her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. At the PCR hearing, Defendant’s PCR counsel alleged that trial counsel made numerous errors, including that he failed to argue mitigating factors and to bring to light evidence suggesting defendant was a battered woman. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Defendant was denied her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to present and argue mitigating evidence at her sentencing. The Court also held that Defendant's plea agreement provisions that restricted the right of counsel to argue for a lesser sentence were void. View "New Jersey v. Hess" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court is whether a condominium complex is liable in tort for injury sustained by a pedestrian on its abutting sidewalk. "551 Observer Highway" is the site of a 104-unit condominium complex (the Building). Each unit is owned in fee simple by individual residents who have an undivided interest in the common elements. Every unit owner is a member of the Skyline at Hoboken Condominium Association, Inc. (Skyline), and only an owner may be a Skyline member. The Master Deed requires owners to pay an “Annual Common Expense” assessment, which is used for, among other things, maintaining the common elements and paying insurance premiums. According to the Master Deed, “common elements” included “[a]ll curbs, sidewalks, stoops, hallways, stairwells, porches and patios.” On the morning of February 14, 2006, while walking on the sidewalk abutting the Building, Plaintiff Richard Luchejko slipped on a sheet of ice and was injured. Plaintiff sued Skyline, CM3 (its property manager), the City of Hoboken, and D&D (a snow-clearing services company) alleging negligence for an unsafe sidewalk. All Defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Skyline, CM3, and Hoboken, but not to D&D. Plaintiff then settled his claim with D&D and unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment to the remaining Defendants. Upon review of the appellate record, the Supreme Court found that the Appellate Division properly analyzed the facts of this case and concluded that no sidewalk liability attached for the injury to Plaintiff. View "Luchejko v. City of Hoboken" on Justia Law

Disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Steven Perskie (who retired from the judiciary in 2010) began with the filing of grievances with the Advisory Committee in July 2008 by Alan Rosefielde, a party to a civil action over which respondent presided between February 2005 and October 2006. The litigation was a business dispute involving issues that arose from Rosefielde's employment with and eventual termination from a business based in Atlantic City. Rosefielde contended that his termination was due to his recommendation that his employer end its business relationship with an insurance broker named Frank Siracusa, whom Rosefielde alleged had engaged in improper and questionable business practices. Siracusa was a central witness to Rosefielde’s counterclaim. Respondent had a longstanding business, social, political, and personal relationship with Siracusa, but informed the parties to the litigation several times that notwithstanding his relationship with Siracusa, he was not uncomfortable presiding over the case and evaluating Siracusa's credibility if Siracusa were to appear as a witness. The Advisory Committee recommended that respondent be censured for violating multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Respondent violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, and 3C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and R. 1:12-1(f). The Court censured Respondent. View "In the Matter of Steven P. Perskie, a Former Judge" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the termination of Defendant R.D.’s parental rights to his two youngest children. In November 2004, defendant’s adult step-daughter reported to the New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services (DYFS) that defendant had been sexually molesting one of her step-sisters. A DYFS investigation resulted in the emergency removal and temporary foster care placement of the children. DYFS filed a complaint, and the Chancery Division issued an order to show cause for protective services, determining that removal was necessary to avoid an ongoing risk to the children. On the return date, the court reaffirmed its determinations and scheduled a fact-finding hearing, noting that the burden of proof "is preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing" evidence. The court eventually concluded that it was in the children's best interests to place them outside the home. After further proceedings, the Title Nine court determined that termination of parental rights followed by adoption was an appropriate plan because defendant had failed to complete services, and thus there continued to be a risk of harm to the children. Defendant never appealed the Title Nine court’s determinations. The central issue in this appeal was whether determinations made in the adjudication of an abuse or neglect proceeding under Title Nine can be given collateral estoppel effect in a later guardianship/termination of parental rights proceeding under Title Thirty. The Supreme Court held that unless the parties are on notice that Title Nine abuse or neglect proceedings are to be conducted under the "clear and convincing" evidence standard constitutionally required for guardianship/termination of parental rights proceedings under Title Thirty and appropriate accommodations are made for the fundamentally different natures of these proceedings, Title Nine determinations cannot be given preclusive effect in later Title Thirty proceedings. View "Division of Youth & Family Services v. R.D." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the statement of reasons issued by the City of Ocean City adequately explained why a candidate for firefighter was bypassed for appointment in favor of two candidates who ranked lower on a competitive civil service examination. In 2007, the City of Ocean City (the City) sought to fill three vacant firefighter positions. On May 24, 2007, a list of eligible candidates for the positions was certified by the Civil Service Commission (Commission) to the City, the appointing authority. Each candidate on the eligible list was ranked according to scores obtained on a competitive examination. Nicholas Foglio ranked second on that list. At the time the list was certified, Foglio had served for eight years as a fireman/emergency medical technician (EMT) in multiple volunteer fire departments, logging over one-thousand total hours. Foglio was the only candidate on the eligible list with any prior firefighting experience and training. The City appointed eligible candidates ranked first (a student-teacher), third (a bartender), and fourth (a lifeguard), bypassing Foglio. In accordance with the provisions of state law, the City reported to the Department of Personnel (DOP) that it had bypassed Foglio, a higher-ranked candidate, because the two lower-ranked eligible candidates best met the needs of Department. Foglio sought review by the Commission. The Commission concluded that Foglio had failed to satisfy his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the appointing authority’s decision to bypass him was improper. In its ruling, it observed that the appointing authority selected two lower-ranked eligible candidates because "they best met the needs” of the fire department. Because Foglio did not assert, much less prove, an unlawful motive, such as discrimination or political influence, the Commission held that, "the appointing authority’s bypass of [Foglio’s] name on the Fire Fighter eligible list was proper." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the City should have provided a statement of "legitimate" reasons for the bypass. Here, the reason advanced was boilerplate and insufficient to satisfy the appointing authority’s reporting obligation. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Foglio" on Justia Law