LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, ETC. VS. JOSE R. RODRIGUEZ (L-2564-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0112-17T4)

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, ETC. VS. JOSE R. RODRIGUEZ (L-2564-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0112-17T4)

In this appeal, the court held that reimbursement of a section 40 workers' compensation lien following a recovery in a third-party action should be based on the fee ratio calculated for the overall settlement and not the sliding contingent fee scale set forth in Rule 1:21-7. Our Supreme Court's holding in Caputo v. Best Foods, Inc., 17 N.J. 259 (1955) is still controlling law.

ROSANNA PRUENT-STEVENS VS. TOMS RIVER TWP. (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (A-1264-17T2)

ROSANNA PRUENT-STEVENS VS. TOMS RIVER TWP. (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (A-1264-17T2)

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30(b) provides that the surviving spouse of a military veteran who meets the statutory requirements for a property tax exemption is also entitled to the exemption which "shall continue during the surviving spouse's widowhood or widowerhood."

Plaintiff was married to a veteran who met all the statutory requirements except that he was not "declared to have suffered a service-connected disability." Although the veteran passed away in 1989, the United States Veteran's Administration declared in 2014 that he suffered from a service-related disability as a result of his exposure to Agent Orange, thus qualifying him for an exemption. As a result, plaintiff filed for a surviving spouse exemption.

Because plaintiff had remarried in 1993, the court determined plaintiff did not qualify for the exemption. The court interpreted the property-tax-exemption statutory scheme and concluded the Legislature intended the right to an exemption for a veteran's surviving spouse continued only during her widowhood from the veteran. The right to the exemption was extinguished upon her remarriage notwithstanding that she, at the time of her application for the exemption, was again widowed after the passing of her second husband in 1997. Recognizing that statutes granting property tax exemptions are subject to strict construction, the court held: "It is not our intent to deny a tax exemption to the widow of a disabled combat-veteran. But it is not our role to amend statutes to ordain what we may deem laudable."

PARK CREST CLEANERS, LLC, ET AL. VS. A PLUS CLEANERS AND ALTERATIONS CORP., ET AL. (C-000078-14,

PARK CREST CLEANERS, LLC, ET AL. VS. A PLUS CLEANERS AND ALTERATIONS CORP., ET AL. (C-000078-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(A-1867-17T4)

Defendants failed to perfect a prior appeal, which the court dismissed on its own motion, leaving for disposition only issues raised by a non-party in a cross-appeal, to which only plaintiffs responded. The cross-appeal was decided on its merits, with the court remanding only for entry of an amended judgment in the cross-appellant's favor.

After entry of the amended judgment, defendants filed an appeal. The court dismissed the appeal because the arguments posed by defendants in the new appeal – arguments that challenged evidence rulings made during a trial that occurred more than two years earlier, as well as the trial judge's disposition of pretrial and post-trial motions – could have been pursued and decided in defendants' prior, abandoned appeal.

JUSTIN WILD VS. CARRIAGE FUNERAL HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. (L-0687-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-3072

JUSTIN WILD VS. CARRIAGE FUNERAL HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. (L-0687-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-3072-17T3)

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal, pursuant to Rule 4:6-2, of his complaint, which alleged defendant terminated his employment as a funeral director because, as a cancer sufferer, he was prescribed and used medical marijuana in conformity with the Compassionate Use Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16. Plaintiff claimed his termination violated the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. The trial judge dismissed the action, concluding that the Compassionate Use Act does not require employers to accommodate an employee's use of medical marijuana. The court reversed because the Compassionate Use Act only declares that "nothing" in that Act "requires" such an accommodation, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14; while that language plainly expressed that the Compassionate Use Act had not created such an obligation, it also plainly did not foreclose the existence of such an obligation elsewhere, such as in the Law Against Discrimination, which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate because of an employee's disability, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). Moreover, the Compassionate Use Act expressly disavowed in that Act only an obligation to accommodate the use of medical marijuana "in any workplace," N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14, and plaintiff alleged he sought an accommodation for his use "off site" and after hours.

Vincent and Rose Mary Piscitelli v. City of Garfield Zoning Board of Adjustment, et al. (079900) (Bergen County and Statewide) (A-68-17

Vincent and Rose Mary Piscitelli v. City of Garfield Zoning Board of Adjustment, et al. (079900) (Bergen County and Statewide) (A-68-17; 079900)

The Court reverses and remands for further proceedings to decide whether any Zoning Board member had a disqualifying conflict of interest in hearing the application for site plan approval and variances in this case. The trial court must assess two separate bases for a potential conflict of interest. First, did Dr. Kenneth -- as president or a member of the Board of Education -- have the authority to vote on significant matters relating to the employment of Zoning Board members or their immediate family members? Second, did any Zoning Board members or an immediate family member have a meaningful patient-physician relationship with any of the three Conte doctors? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then a conflict of interest mandated disqualification and the decision of the Zoning Board must be vacated. The Court does not possess sufficient information to answer those questions.

Joshua Haines v. Jacob W. Taft; Tuwona Little v. Jayne Nishimura (079600) (Camden County and Statewide) (A-13/14-1

Joshua Haines v. Jacob W. Taft; Tuwona Little v. Jayne Nishimura (079600) (Camden County and Statewide) (A-13/14-17; 079600)

The Court cannot conclude that there is evidence of a clear intention on the part of the Legislature to deviate from the carefully constructed no-fault first-party PIP system of regulated coverage of contained medical expenses and return to fault-based suits consisting solely of economic damages claims for medical expenses in excess of an elected lesser amount of available PIP coverage. Unless the Legislature makes such an intent clearly known, the Court will not assume that such a change was intended by the Legislature through its amendments to the no-fault system in the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act.

Frank Caraballo v. City of Jersey City Police Department (080467) (Hudson County and Statewide) (A-71-17; 080467)

Frank Caraballo v. City of Jersey City Police Department (080467) (Hudson County and Statewide) (A-71-17; 080467)

Caraballo’s failure to utilize the Act’s administrative remedies to obtain knee replacement surgery precludes his failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD. In addition, Caraballo’s total knee replacement surgery cannot qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the LAD.