KATHERINE FELICIANO VS. JEFFREY N. FALDETTA, ET AL.

KATHERINE FELICIANO VS. JEFFREY N. FALDETTA, ET
AL.
 A-1301-12T3

This appeal raised the issue of whether, in the
context of a contingent fee case, an award of fees under
Rule 4:58-2(a) should be reduced by the amount of the
contingent fee to avoid a double recovery. The panel held
that it should not because the fee belongs to the client
and the attorney is not entitled to the entire contingent
fee from the client under that circumstance. The attorney
is entitled to the fee awarded pursuant to Rule 4:58-2 for
the work done after the offer of judgment was rejected and
fair compensation from the client for the period prior to
that. 02/21/14

WILLIAM E. NEWMAN, JR. VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL.

WILLIAM E. NEWMAN, JR. VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET
AL.
 A-2253-09T3

We reverse the Board's determination to disqualify
claimant from benefits for six weeks and remand for a new
hearing for two reasons. First, a hearing as to the
timeliness of the employer's appeal was held in claimant's
absence when he was serving in the United States Air Force,
contrary to the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50
U.S.C.A. app. §§ 501 to 597. Second, the Board improperly
found the employer's appeal was timely filed based on the date the employer received the determination from its
representative, UC Express, rather than the date that UC
Express received it. 02/19/14
 

L.R. VS. DIVISION OF DISABILITY SERVICES

L.R. VS. DIVISION OF DISABILITY SERVICES
 A-5701-11T2

L.R. participates in the Personal Assistance Service
Program under the Personal Assistance Services Act,
N.J.S.A. 30:4G-13 to -22. She receives a monthly cash
budget to assist her perform routine, nonmedical tasks and
promote the greatest possible degree of self-control and
self-direction. She appeals from the decision of the
Commissioner of Human Services denying her request to use
unspent funds to pay for the landline connection to her
residence phone, cell phone service, and internet access.

We reverse. The Commissioner's decision was
arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the
Legislature's policy of promoting the greatest possible
degree of self-control and self-direction on the part of
consumers of Personal Assistance Service Program services. 02/06/14

PORT LIBERTE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. V. NEW LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL URBAN RENEWAL CO.

PORT LIBERTE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. V. NEW LIBERTY
RESIDENTIAL URBAN RENEWAL CO.
A-2574-11T1;A-3129-11T1(CONSOLIDATED)

Several years into the litigation, the trial court
dismissed a massive construction lawsuit filed by a
condominium association, on the grounds that the
association had filed the lawsuit without first obtaining
the unit owners' approval as required by the by-laws.
Although the unit owners had voted to ratify the filing of
the suit, the trial court reasoned that post-filing
ratification was not permitted. We concluded that was
contrary to well-established case law concerning
ratification. We also reasoned that construing the by-laws
to preclude ratification produced an absurd result,
contrary to the unit owners' interests and to the purpose
of the Condominium Act. We held that defendants – the
developers and builders — had no standing to represent the
interests of the unit owners in enforcement of the by-laws.
Any interest defendants had in avoiding possible
duplicative litigation by unit owners was satisfied when
the unit owners' ratified the association's filing of the
complaint. 01/31/14

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 97, ET AL. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 97, ET AL. VS. STATE OF NEW
JERSEY, ET AL. NEW JERSEY STATE FIREFIGHTERS'
MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION ET AL. VS. STATE OF
NEW JERSEY ET AL.
 A-3274-10T3; A-3868-10T3;A-3916-10T3;A-4086-
10T3(CONSOLIDATED)

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs, who
represent state and local public employees in collective
negotiations with public employers, challenge the
constitutionality of three laws: L. 2010, c. 1, which made
changes to State-administered retirement systems; L. 2010,
c. 2, which made changes to eligibility requirements for
and benefits provided through the State Health Benefits
Program (SHBP) and School Employees' Health Benefits
Program (SEHBP); and L. 2010, c. 3, which made changes to
other public employee benefits. We reject plaintiffs'
constitutional challenges and affirm the trial court's
dismissal of plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 01/31/14

STEPHANIE PLATIA VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON

 STEPHANIE PLATIA VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
 TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON, MERCER COUNTY
 A-1730-12T3

In this appeal, we consider the application of the
"temporary" employee exception to the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A.
18A:16-1.1. Plaintiff was employed as a special education
teacher by the Board of Education of Hamilton Township
(Board) for more than three academic years in a four-year
period. However, the Board denied that she obtained tenure
under the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18, because her
employment for one of those academic years was as a "Long
Term Substitute" pursuant to a contract that stated the
position was "non-tenurial." We conclude the exception
does not apply and that Platia obtained tenure as of right. 01/29/14

W.B. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

W.B. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
 A-5490-11T3

In Williams v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 423 N.J. Super.
176 (App. Div. 2011), we considered whether the
Commissioner's broad authority to select the appropriate
institution to house inmates, N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.2, is
limited by the Sex Offender Act (SOA), N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1 to
-10. In deciding the appeal of an inmate who challenged
his transfer from the general prison population to the
Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC), we concluded that
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC)
lacked the discretion to transfer inmates to the ADTC who
did not meet the sentencing parameters of the SOA.
Williams, supra, 423 N.J. Super. at 186. W.B.'s appeal
entails a different challenge to the authority of the
Commissioner regarding assignment to the ADTC. Convicted
as a sex offender in New Hampshire, his custody was
transferred to New Jersey pursuant to the Interstate
Corrections Compact (the Compact), N.J.S.A. 30:7C-1 to -12;1
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 622-B:1 to -B:3 (2013), where he
was assigned to the ADTC. Following Williams, however, he
was reassigned to a wing for inmates who were not sentenced
under the SOA and appealed that decision, arguing that the
Compact required that he be treated as an ADTC-eligible
offender. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 01/29/14

[1As codified, the Compact "empowers New Jersey to enter into contracts with other states
'for the confinement of inmates on behalf of a sending state in institutions situated
within receiving states.'" Van Wickle v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 370 N.J. Super. 40, 45
(App. Div. 2004) (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:7C-4(a)).]

Nowell James v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company

 Nowell James v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance
Company (A-26-12; 071344)

 As of its effective date of September 10, 2007,
N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f) applied to and prospectively
reformed, for employees, a corporation’s or business
entity’s motor vehicle liability policy containing
UM/UIM step-down provisions, including policies that
were in force at that time. No exceptions to the rule
favoring prospective application of new legislation
pertain to N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f). Because James’s
accident preceded N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f)’s effective
date, his claims are governed by the provision of the
NJM policy that were in existence as of the date of
his accident. 
2-3-14

Amratlal C. Bhagat v. Bharat A. Bhagat

Amratlal C. Bhagat v. Bharat A. Bhagat (A-31-11;
068213)

 A person seeking to rebut the presumption that a
transfer of property from a parent to a child is a
gift must show clear and convincing evidence of a
contrary intent. That person is limited to evidence
antecedent to, contemporaneous with, or immediately
following the transfer, and may also adduce proof of
statements by the parties concerning the purpose and
effect of the transfer. Applying those principles,
the evidence adduced by A.C., including statements
made by B.B. in a prior litigation regarding the
ownership of ABB Properties stock, raises sufficient
factual issues to defeat summary judgment in this
case. 1-30-14