NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY VS. S.G.IN THE MATTER OF A.G. AND G.W.G. A-2533-14T3

 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY VS. S.G.IN THE MATTER OF A.G. AND G.W.G. 

A-2533-14T3 

Defendant S.G. appeals the trial court's finding that she abused or neglected her two-year-old daughter, in violation of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c). The trial court found that because defendant permitted drug use and drug dealing in the home where she and her daughter resided, and took no discernable steps to mitigate her daughter's exposure, her conduct was reckless and put her child at substantial risk of harm. 

No witnesses testified at the fact-finding hearing. The parties agreed to forego the presentation of witnesses and to have the trial court decide material facts in dispute based solely on redacted copies of a police report detailing the events leading up to and occurring on the date of the drug raid and investigation summaries prepared by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. 

Since a determination of abuse and neglect requires a fact-sensitive analysis of particularized evidence, we hold that witness testimony was necessary to provide the court with the necessary facts to determine whether defendant exercised the requisite minimum degree of care under the circumstances. Merely reciting information found in redacted documentary evidence does not constitute fact-finding. This is especially so when there are unresolved and disputed details regarding facts of consequence to the determination of an abuse or neglect finding. Thus, although the parties acquiesced to a trial "on the papers," the court would have been better equipped to perform its role as fact-finder had these matters been developed more fully with evidence at a testimonial hearing. 

DEBRA WARREN, ET AL. VS. CHRISTOPHER P. MUENZEN M.D., ET AL. A-1949-15T4

DEBRA WARREN, ET AL. VS. CHRISTOPHER P. MUENZEN M.D.,
          ET AL.

A-1949-15T4
In 2009, the Legislature amended the Survivor Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-3, for the first time including a statute of limitations requiring "[e]very action" under the Act "be commenced within two years after the death of the decedent . . . ." The 2009 Amendment also provided that if the death was a homicide, an action against "a defendant [who had] been convicted, found not guilty by reason of insanity or adjudicated delinquent . . . may be brought at any time." In this regard, the 2009 Amendment mirrored an earlier amendment to the Wrongful Death Act (the WDA).
We granted leave to appeal in this case, in which plaintiff, executrix of her husband's estate, filed a medical malpractice complaint alleging causes of action under the Survivor Act and the WDA. The complaint was not filed within the two-year statute of limitation applicable to bodily injury, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, but was filed within two years of the decedent's death. In reversing the motion judge's denial of partial summary judgment to defendant on the Survivor Act claims, we concluded that construing the 2009 Amendment literally would lead to absurd results, contrary to the Legislature's stated intention when adopting the 2009 Amendment and contrary to a number of statutes of limitation found elsewhere in Title 2A. 

MARK R. KRZYKALSKI, ET AL. VS. DAVID T. TINDALL A-2539-14T3

MARK R. KRZYKALSKI, ET AL. VS. DAVID T. TINDALL
          A-2539-14T3/A-2774-14T3(CONSOLIDATED)

Plaintiff commenced this personal injury suit against defendant, whose vehicle rear-ended plaintiff's, as well as a fictitious defendant, an unknown driver, who had cut across the lane in which plaintiff was driving to make a left turn. The

trial judge permitted the jury to determine whether both defendant and the unknown driver were negligent and, if so, to ascertain their respective responsibility for plaintiff's injuries; both were found negligent, and the unknown driver was found 97% responsible. The court held that the trial judge properly allowed the jury to apportion responsibility between the known and unknown defendants, extending Cockerline v. Menendez, 411 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 201 N.J. 499 (2010), which differed only because, in Cockerline, the plaintiff had already settled with the UM insurer and thereby fixed the unknown driver's contribution, and here no such settlement was reached and no proceedings had occurred with respect to the UM carrier.

     Judge Leone filed a concurring opinion.

HUNY & BH ASSOCIATES INC, ET AL. VS. AVI SILBERBERG, ET AL. A-4569-15T1

HUNY & BH ASSOCIATES INC, ET AL. VS. AVI SILBERBERG,
          ET AL.

A-4569-15T1
Our court has split on the question whether an order denying intervention as of right under Rule 4:33-1 is appealable as of right as a final order. Compare Grober v. Kahn, 88 N.J. Super. 343 360 (App. Div. 1965) (order appealable as a right), rev'd on other grounds, 47 N.J. 135 (1966), with Gov't Sec. Co. v. Waire, 94 N.J. Super. 586, 588-89 (App. Div.) (characterizing appeal as interlocutory, without discussing Grober), certif. denied, 50 N.J. 84 (1967). In this case, we deem it consistent with New Jersey practice and policy to treat the denial of a motion to intervene as of right as an interlocutory order, for which there is no right to appeal. We conclude that federal practice, upon which the Grober panel relied, is not a persuasive model.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Fisher agrees there is no right to appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene as of right. But, rather than dismiss the appeal, he would grant leave to appeal, stating that the court should liberally indulge applications for interlocutory review of such orders. 

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO VS. NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION I/M/O JOB BANDING FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST 1

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO VS. NEW
          JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

          I/M/O JOB BANDING FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
          SPECIALIST 1 AND 2, AND NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR 1 AND 2,
          OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
          I/M/O CHANGES IN THE STATE CLASSIFICATION
          PLAN AND JOB BANDING REQUEST, DEPARTMENT OF
          TRANSPORTATION
          A-4912-13T3/A-3041-14T3/A-0230-15T3/A-0232-15T3/ A-
          0274-15T3/ A-0275-15T3 (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey State Legislature and other parties

The
challenged several administrative agency decisions rendered by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pertaining to a Job Banding Rule (the Rule), N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.2A. The CSC adopted and implemented the Rule after the Legislature invoked its veto power, pursuant to N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6 (the Legislative Review Clause), finding in numerous concurrent resolutions that the Rule conflicted with the Civil Service Act (CSA), N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 to 12-6, which incorporated the text of N.J. Const. art. VII, § 1, ¶ 2.

We concluded that the Legislature is entitled to substantial deference when it exercises its constitutional power to invalidate an administrative rule or regulation pursuant to the Legislative Review Clause. We held, however, that we may reverse the Legislature's invalidation of an administrative executive rule or regulation if (1) the Legislature has not complied with the procedural requirements of the Legislative Review Clause; (2) its action violates the protections afforded by the Federal or New Jersey Constitution; or (3) the Legislature's concurrent resolution amounts to a patently erroneous interpretation of "the language of the statute which the rule or regulation is intended to implement."
We reversed the decisions and concluded that the Legislature validly exercised its authority under the Legislative Review Clause. We therefore set aside the Rule, in all of its amended forms. 

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY VS. G.S. AND K.S. IN THE MATTER OF A.S. AND B.S. A-5222-15T2/

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY
          VS. G.S. AND K.S. IN THE MATTER OF A.S. AND B.S.
          A-5222-15T2/A-5223-15T2 (CONSOLIDATED)

We review the Family Part's series of orders that concern the potential need to disqualify one or both staff attorneys from the Office of Parental Representation ("OPR") who respectively represent the father and the mother in defending this child welfare case. The conflict-of-interest questions were prompted by defendants' advocacy of competing parenting plans for the future care of their twin children.
With some modification, we affirm the trial judge's determination to conduct a hearing to explore the conflict and waiver issues that arose in this particular case.
We agree with the OPR, the Office of Law Guardian, and the amicus New Jersey State Bar Association that, with appropriate screening measures, the law does not categorically prohibit or even presumptively disfavor two staff attorneys working out of the same OPR regional office from separately defending each of the parents in child welfare cases. In addition, when a significant divergence arises between the parents during the course of such litigation, the actual or potential conflict often may be mutually waivable by those clients, with appropriate consultation and substantiation of that waiver.
We further conclude that the trial court has an appropriate institutional role in assuring that the zealous independence of the staff attorneys will not be compromised, and that the confidentiality of client communications and attorney work product will be scrupulously maintained. The court retains the authority and discretion to conduct a hearing to explore such matters on a case-by-case basis to address specific instances where particularized concerns have arisen about the propriety of ongoing representation by the staff attorneys or the sufficiency of any client waivers. 

CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL. A-4335-14T2

CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL.
A-4335-14T2
In this opinion, we conclude that plaintiff, the owner of convenience stores and gas stations throughout the State, failed to establish that it had an enforceable settlement agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("the DEP") that purportedly resolved natural resource damage claims the DEP had asserted under the New Jersey Spill and Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 to -23.50. Although the DEP sent plaintiff a draft settlement agreement for review, plaintiff never formally responded to the DEP's overtures and never sought

to participate in the negotiations necessary to complete the process.
We also address the applicability of N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11e2 to the settlement process. That provision, which went into effect in April 2006, requires the DEP to publish public notice concerning the terms of a proposed settlement at least thirty days prior to its agreement to any settlement. Here, we hold that the parties never agreed upon the terms of the settlement and, therefore, the DEP was not required to publish notice of the proposed settlement pursuant to the statute. However, we make clear that had the parties agreed upon the settlement terms and published those terms for public comment, the DEP would have had the authority to thereafter consummate, withdraw from, or modify the agreement based upon the responses received during the public comment period. 

THE ESTATE OF FRANCIS P. KENNEDY, ET AL. VS. STUART A. ROSENBLATT, C.P.A., ET AL. A-5397-15T4

THE ESTATE OF FRANCIS P. KENNEDY, ET AL. VS. STUART A. ROSENBLATT, C.P.A., ET AL.
A-5397-15T4
This interlocutory appeal involves a conflict-of-interest issue that arose after plaintiffs' attorney, who had filed and dismissed a professional negligence action while at his former firm, recommenced the action after joining his new firm, which had represented a defendant in the original action. That defendant, now represented by the same individual attorneys (who had since joined another firm) moved to disqualify plaintiffs' new firm under RPC 1.10(b), on the basis that attorneys there had information protected by RPC 1.6 and RPC 1.9 material to the action, namely, electronically stored confidential documents.
Construing RPC 1.10(b) in light of recent amendments to RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information) and its commentary, we concluded the senior member of plaintiff's new firm/defendant's former firm, who reviewed the electronically stored file to determine if a conflict existed, could review the metadata (defined in RPC 1.0 (p)) and document titles without violating RPC 1.10(b); but could not review the substantive content of the documents without violating RPC 1.10(b). We remanded the matter for a determination of that issue.
We also suggested the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics review what obligation the defendant's attorneys had upon leaving their former firm to assure the client's information was secure and would not be improperly accessed. 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY FOR A DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19./ IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY FOR A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR A PROPOSED NATURAL GAS PIPELINE A-1685-15T1

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY FOR A DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19./ IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY FOR A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR A PROPOSED NATURAL GAS PIPELINE A-1685-15T1/A-2705-15T1/A-2706-15T1

There is sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the decision of the Board of Public Utilities that the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163, and any local regulations adopted pursuant to the MLUL shall not apply to a pipeline that South Jersey Gas proposes to construct in the Pinelands, but the Board mistakenly relied upon a decision by the Executive Director of the Pinelands Commission (Commission), who found that construction of the pipeline was consistent with the requirements of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, N.J.A.C. 7:50-1.1 to -10.35, because the Executive Director did not have authority to render a final decision for the Commission on that issue. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Commission for review of the Executive Director's decision, and the Board is directed to issue an

amended order, stating that its approval of the pipeline is conditioned upon issuance by the Commission of a final decision finding that the pipeline satisfies the requirements of the CMP. 

Building and Marketing a Personal Injury Practice: Tips for a Better Practice and forms for attorneys to help their clients Book on sale

Building and Marketing a Personal Injury Practice: Tips for a Better Practice and forms for attorneys to help their clients

Book on sale

https://www.amazon.com/Building-Marketing-Personal-Injury-Practice/dp/1508677611/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1476063125&sr=1-6&keywords=vercammen

Product Details

         Paperback: 216 pages

$20.00

         Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition (February 27, 2015)

         Language: English

         ISBN-10: 1508677611

         ISBN-13: 978-1508677611

         Product Dimensions: 6 x 0.5 x 9 inches

Author: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. Edison NJ Member American Bar Association

Table of Contents

How to Handle the Personal Injury Case and Forms to Serve Your Clients  4

Forms either in the book or online for readers:                           5

Personal Injury Form Letters                                                        5

Discovery forms                                                                           9

Motions                                                                                         9

YOU WORK FOR YOUR CLIENTS                                                10

ANSWERING PHONES  and talking to prior clients, calls from attorneys    15

SCHEDULING NEW MATTER APPOINTMENTS & SETTING UP UNOPENED FILES   19

appointment lt email                                                                  27

PERSONAL INJURY FACT SHEET                                                 28

Repair Damage Estimate: 01 RETAINER Personal Injury          40

AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PERSONAL INJURY LEGAL SERVICES 40

01A Client w_ retainer.doc                                                         45

39B Def Ins Co.doc                                                                      58

39C Def Details_Ax I.doc                                                            59

39D Def Details_Ax long.doc                                                     61

Police Report Req.doc                                                                 66

slip & fall claim lt.doc                                                                 67

PI FactSheet to Cl.doc                                                                 69

Req med info.doc                                                                        71

new dr pip med bill.doc                                                              74

Mail Cert Merit to Cl.doc                                                            78

Cl- Medicare lien.doc                                                                  79

08 PIP Letter to Insur.doc                                                            88

11 request Dr.doc                                                                       91

15 Pl to Def W ROG ANS.doc                                                     94

18  SETTLE TO OTHER ATTY.doc                                                95

18A Release to Client.doc                                                           96

24 To PIP w_Bills.doc                                                                  97

25 Arbitration Lt to Def .doc                                                       98

28 Dep Notice to Cl.doc                                                            100

32 Pl to Sign Rogs                                                                     102

33 REQ MED INFO.doc                                                             103

36_Transmittal- Middlesex.doc                                               104

37 Def Exam cl.doc                                                                   105

40 Sall_Myers exam.doc                                                          108

42 Status Report.doc                                                                111

54  Notice of Claim- Long.doc                                                  115

Arbitration Notice to cl-PI.doc                                                  133

Client read other rogs.doc                                                        136

Current CM to Client.doc                                                           137

Dr- Illegible medical rec.doc                                                    143

Dr-Cl request medical record .doc                                            144

Employer wage auth.doc                                                          145

Notice of Initial Trial t.doc                                                        148

On Call Subpoena lt.doc                                                            150

PI FactSheet to Cl.doc                                                               154

Reasonable hospital recor.doc                                                 155

Thank you Doctor Dr.doc                                                          175

FALLDOWN ROGS extra Photo.doc                                          195

Req for Doc Fall down v def                                                     209

Subpoena ducestecum_cp.doc                                                 214

A & B Complaint by Bus in  assault                                          220

Affidavit of Non Military                                                          225

Assault & Dram Shop Cm                                                         227

COMPL_FALLDOWN                                                                 238

COMPL_MV_STANDARD                                                          240

COMMON  ABBREVIATIONS                                                    245

Acknowledgment for PI book                                                   247

Conclusion                                                                                 248

About the Author                                                                      248