6/26/2014 BERG, ET AL. VS. HON. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE,ET AL./MICHAEL DELUCIA, ET AL. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DIVISION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS A-5973-11T4/A-6002-11T4/ A-0632-12T1(CONSOLIDATED)

6/26/2014

BERG, ET AL. VS. HON. CHRISTOPHER J.

CHRISTIE,ET AL./MICHAEL DELUCIA, ET AL. VS. STATE

OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

DIVISION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS

A-5973-11T4/A-6002-11T4/ A-0632-12T1(CONSOLIDATED)

Our opinion decides two appeals, Berg and DeLucia. In Berg, construing 1997 pension legislation, we conclude that the Legislature intended to create a contractual right to receive pension benefits, including cost of living adjustments. We find that plaintiffs' claims for payment of benefits from the pension funds is not barred by the Debt Limitation and Appropriations Clauses of the StateConstitution. We reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the State, and remand to allow the parties to create an evidentiary record on whether the State can satisfy the constitutional standard it must meet to justify impairing the obligation of a contract. In DeLucia, plaintiffs raised separate arguments that we find without merit, and we affirm the trial court's decision granting summary judgment.

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, D/B/A JAGUAR CREDIT VS. PATRICIA MENDOLA VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, D/B/A JAGUAR CREDIT VS. PATRICIA MENDOLA VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.    A-4675-10T1

The precise and limited issue we decide is whether a claimant must present expert testimony to support her causes of action against several defendants in the automotive business for damages sustained when the engine of her leased automobile seized. We hold that an expert witness is necessary to support the claims of negligent repair and inspection of the repair work, and to prove that the vehicle was defective. However, a

prima facie claim of breach of express warranty does not require proof of a defect and, therefore, does not in the first instance require that the claimant have an expert witness to explain the reasons that the vehicle did not perform as warranted. We also hold that there is no cause of action for damages to the product itself, and consequential losses arising from such damages, under New Jersey's Product Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 to - 11.    07-24-12

VLAD Y. MAKUTOFF VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL.

VLAD Y. MAKUTOFF VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. A-3444-10T3

Non-immigrant professionals granted limited work authorization by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the North American Free Trade Act are not eligible for unemployment benefits because they are not "available for work" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c). The authorization permits the professional to work only for an identified employer, and additional approval must be obtained from DHS before he or she can work for another. See 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 3301- 3473; 8 U.S.C.A. § 1184(e)(2); 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(15)(H). 07-23-12

WAYNE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, ET AL.

WAYNE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, ET AL. A-3478-10T4; A-3607-10T4 (CONSOLIDATED)

Plaintiff builders must exhaust their administrative remedies before the Council on Affordable Housing in connection with the consideration the Township's petition for substantive certification in the third round of the Council's process prior to proceeding in the Law Division on their Mount Laurel challenges to the ordinances that received second-roundsubstantive certification. 07-19-12

INVESTORS SAVINGS BANK v. WALDO JERSEY CITY, LLC, ET AL.

INVESTORS SAVINGS BANK v. WALDO JERSEY CITY, LLC, ET AL.

A-6201-09T3Plaintiff commenced this action, seeking damages based upon defendants' alleged default on a loan agreement; defendants filed a counterclaim, alleging plaintiff's material breach of the loan agreement. The trial judge dismissed the counterclaim by enforcing a contract provision, which proclaimed the loan agreement was to be "free from any right of setoff, counterclaim or other defense." Because this waiver provision was not intended to extinguish defendants' claims -- only relegate them to a separate suit -- the court found it conflicted with the rules of procedure and was, thus, unenforceable. 2-17-11