JEFFREY McDANIEL, ET AL. VS. MAN WAI LEE, ET AL.
A-5900-09T1
In this multi-vehicle auto negligence action, we conclude
N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, the fellow-servant provision of the Workers'
Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128, bars a third-party
tortfeasor's action against the co-worker seeking
indemnification and contribution. 04-27-11
STEVEN ORNER, ET AL. VS. GUANG LIU, ET AL.
A-6185-09T4
This action, which concerned disputes about plaintiffs'
sale of certain rental properties to defendants, was settled and
dismissed on June 8, 2009. The parties' settlement agreement
provided for the execution of new contracts within three days
and a closing no later September 15, 2009, after which -- if the
closing did not occur -- the parties would have no further
obligations. The parties failed to agree on the form and
content of new contracts, and plaintiffs sold the properties to
others.
Defendants filed a motion for relief, pursuant to Rule
4:50-1, on June 7, 2010, one day short of a year from the order
in question. The trial judge denied the motion and the court
affirmed, concluding among other things that the motion was
untimely. In affirming, the court emphasized that Rule 4:50-2
requires that all motions for relief pursuant to Rule 4:50-1
must be filed within "a reasonable time." Rule 4:50-2's
declaration that motions based on subsections (a), (b), or (c)
of Rule 4:50-1 may not be filed more than one year from the
order in question represents only an outer limit; such motions
must still be filed within "a reasonable time," which may be
less than one year. 04-26-11
IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION'S
DENIAL OF PETITION TO ADOPT REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTING THE NEW JERSEY HIGH SCHOOL VOTER
REGISTRATION LAW
A-5681-09T3
We construe N.J.S.A. 18A:36-28, which prescribes that the
Commissioner of Education "shall adopt pursuant to the
'Administrative Procedure Act' . . . rules and regulations
necessary to implement the provisions" of the High School Voter
Registration Law (the "HSVRL"), N.J.S.A. 18A:36-27, to impose a
mandatory, not a directory, obligation upon the Commissioner to
adopt regulations implementing the statute.
We affirm the denial of appellants' petition for rulemaking
because respondents have enacted regulations under N.J.A.C.
6A:30, Appendix A and B, to monitor compliance with the HSVRL by
public school districts. Although appellants contend that those
regulations are insufficient, we do not find respondents' chosen
method to implement the statute with respect to public schools
to be arbitrary or capricious. However, we reverse the denial
of appellants' petition with respect to nonpublic schools
because N.J.S.A. 18A:36-27 explicitly applies to both public and
nonpublic schools, and respondents have not adopted any
regulations to implement the HSVRL as to nonpublic schools. 04-25-11
DEAN SMITH VS. HUDSON COUNTY REGISTER, ET AL.
JEFF ZEIGER VS. HUDSON COUNTY REGISTER, ET AL.
A-4113-09T3, A-4114-09T3, (CONSOLIDATED)
A requestor who is charged an excessive amount to obtain copies
of public records under the Open Public Records Act ("OPRA"),
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, who then prevails in an OPRA action
against the public entity that engaged in the overcharging, or
whose OPRA action acts as a catalyst to a change in the public
entity's practices, is entitled to receive reasonable attorney's
fees pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. The requirement within the
fee-shifting provision, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6, that the requestor be
"denied access" to the records is not restricted to instances
where physical access has been denied, but also encompasses
instances where a requestor has been forced to pay excessive
copying charges to obtain the records at rates above those
prescribed by OPRA in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b). Applying these
standards, we hold that plaintiff Dean Smith, who was a
prevailing party in Smith v. Hudson County Register, 411 N.J.
Super. 538 (App. Div. 2010), which produced a change in
defendants' practices, is entitled to an award of reasonable
trial and appellate counsel fees. 04-25-11
BARBARA A BOTIS VS. ESTATE OF GARY G KUDRICK VS. WELLS
FARGO BANK
A-5562-09T4
Effective January 18, 2009, the statute of frauds, N.J.S.A.
25:1-5 to -16, was amended to include palimony agreements among
the types of "agreements or promises" that must be in writing
and signed by the parties in order to be enforceable. N.J.S.A.
25:1-5(h); L. 2009, c. 311, § 1. This case requires us to
determine whether to accord the amendment retroactive effect in
a case filed against the deceased promisor's Estate prior to the
effective date of the amendment on an alleged palimony agreement
enforceable when the complaint was filed. We conclude that the
amendment applies prospectively and affirm the June 9, 2010
order denying the Estate's motion to dismiss the complaint,
which is before us on leave granted. 04-21-11
DOVER-CHESTER ASSOCIATES, ETC. VS. RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP
AND RANDOLPH TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, L.P. ET AL. VS.
RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP (CONSOLIDATED)
A-3445-09T3, A-3446-09T3
These appeals from the judgment of a county board of
taxation to the Tax Court are governed by N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(b),
which requires that all taxes due for the year for which review
is sought must have been paid "[a]t the time that a complaint
has been filed with the Tax Court[.]" In contrast, direct
appeals to the Tax Court and initial appeals to a county board
of taxation are governed by N.J.S.A. 54:3-27, which requires the
appealing taxpayer to pay all taxes due, up to and including the
first quarter of the taxes assessed against him for the current
tax year. However, because N.J.S.A. 54:3-27 does not specify
when such payment must be made, we have found the requirement
satisfied when payment is made by the return date of a motion to
dismiss the appeal. The Legislature amended the statutes in
1999, adding provisions that permitted the relaxation of the tax
payment requirements in the "interests of justice" but did not
define that term. As we have not previously considered the
application of that provision and a conflict has arisen in
decisions in the Tax Court, we address the question whether
relaxation is required in the "interests of justice" under
N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(b) if the tax obligation is satisfied before
the return date of a motion to dismiss its complaint. We
conclude that it is not. 04-20-11
REZEM FAMILY ASSOCIATES, LP VS. THE BOROUGH OF
MILLSTONE, ET AL.
A-2290-09T2
The primary issue on appeal is whether a plaintiff must
exhaust administrative and judicial remedies, and obtain a final
ruling on its land use claims, before it can pursue a cause of
action for alleged violation of its substantive due process
rights. We hold that a substantive due process claim in a land
use dispute requires both governmental misconduct that "shocks
the conscience" and exhaustion of remedies available under our
land use law. 04-15-11