STEVEN CALTABIANO V. GILDA T. GILL A-2805-16T4

STEVEN CALTABIANO V. GILDA T. GILL 

A-2805-16T4 

After the voters of Salem County approved a referendum at the November 2016 General Election, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:20-20, to reduce the size of the Freeholder Board from seven to five members, the County Clerk determined that the transition procedure would be to place five new freeholders positions on the 2017 ballot, with those elected to take office on the Monday following that election, at which time the terms of all existing freeholders would terminate. 

A challenge was brought, and the trial court approved the Clerk's determination. We reversed, holding that the transition should be accomplished by placing on the 2017 ballot only one freeholder position. Because the terms of three existing freeholders expire at the end of 2017, the reduction to five members would thus be accomplished without prematurely terminating the terms of any existing freeholders. 

H. JAMES RIPPON VS. LEROY SMIGEL, ESQ., ET AL. A-2722-15T2

H. JAMES RIPPON VS. LEROY SMIGEL, ESQ., ET AL. 

A-2722-15T2 

In this case, a Pennsylvania lawyer and his law firm represented plaintiff's spouse in a highly contentious divorce action in Pennsylvania. During that proceeding, the lawyer sent a letter to a New Jersey bank that plaintiff had contacted about obtaining a mortgage on a house he hoped to purchase in New Jersey. Among other things, the lawyer's letter intimated that plaintiff was improperly using marital funds to purchase the home. After the bank denied plaintiff a mortgage, he filed an action in New Jersey against his spouse, the lawyer, and his firm for defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations. 

The trial court dismissed the New Jersey action, finding that it did not have jurisdiction over the lawyer and the law firm and that the complaint was barred on the basis of forum non conveniens and the doctrine of res judicata. In this opinion, the court remands the matter to the trial court to permit plaintiff to engage in discovery on the questions of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The court also concludes that plaintiff's complaint was not barred on res judicata grounds. 

BRIAN SULLIVAN VS. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, ET AL. A-3506-14T1

BRIAN SULLIVAN VS. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND 

NEW JERSEY, ET AL. 

A-3506-14T1 

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and individual Port Authority employees, alleging retaliation and civil conspiracy in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14. We affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment based on a finding that the Port Authority is not subject to suit under CEPA. 

The Port Authority is a bi-state agency created by a compact that prohibits unilateral action by one state without express authorization in the compact or the concurrence of the legislature of the other state. The corollary to this proposition is that the Port Authority may be subject to complementary or parallel state legislation. Under the complementary or parallel legislation principle, one compact state's law can be applied to the bi-state agency if it is substantially similar to the legislation of the other state. If there is no complementary legislation, then it must be determined whether the bi-state agency impliedly consented to unilateral state regulation. 

We determined that the compact did not expressly provide for application of CEPA against the Port Authority. We then compared CEPA to the New York Whistleblower Law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 740, and held they were not substantially similar so as to alter the compact. We also held that the clear and unambiguous language in the state legislations creating the Port Authority and the lack of complementary and parallel whistleblower statutes confirmed that New York and New Jersey did not mutually intend to consent to suit against the Port Authority under CEPA. 

175 EXECUTIVE HOUSE, LLC VS. ELESHA MILES A-1604-15T2

175 EXECUTIVE HOUSE, LLC VS. ELESHA MILES
          A-1604-15T2

Although tenant received a rent subsidy voucher under the State's Rental Assistance Program (S-RAP) and timely paid her portion of the monthly rent, the landlord obtained a judgment of possession because she failed to pay late fees, attorney's fees and court costs ("additional rent").
The court vacated the judgment of possession, holding that a tenant with an S-RAP voucher cannot be evicted based solely on the non-payment of additional rent because to do so contravenes applicable regulations. 

GREG NOREN VS. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC. A-2651-13T3

GREG NOREN VS. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
          A-2651-13T3

In previously ruling on the merits, the court, among other things, dismissed defendant's cross-appeal from the denial of summary judgment because defendant failed to comply with Rule 2:6-1(a)(1), which requires inclusion in the appendix of all items, and a statement of all items, presented to the trial court on the motion for summary judgment. Noren v. Heartland Payment Sys., Inc., __ N.J. Super. __, __ (App. Div. 2017) (slip op. at 14-15). Defendant moved for reconsideration, arguing that the cited Rule refers only to appeals "from a summary judgment," which, in defendant's view, could only mean an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, not a denial. The court denied the motion and rejected defendant's argument, holding that the Rule's critical phrase – "from a summary judgment" – incorporates appeals from any disposition of a motion for summary judgment. 

DIANA ACEVEDO AND REX FORNARO VS. FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. A-1295-14T2

DIANA ACEVEDO AND REX FORNARO VS. FLIGHTSAFETY
          INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

A-1295-14T2
A back pay award under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) is not to be reduced by the amount of unemployment compensation which the plaintiff has received. The collateral source statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97, does not apply to monetary awards under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). 

GREG AND RENEE MATEJEK VS. MARTHA AND GUY WATSON, ET AL. A-4683-14T1

GREG AND RENEE MATEJEK VS. MARTHA AND GUY WATSON, ET AL.

A-4683-14T1
In this action, one condominium unit owner sued neighboring unit owners, seeking their participation in an investigation of the site for the purpose of removing the cloud on title imposed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's open file, which was initiated years earlier when oil was found in a nearby brook. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the judge granted the relief sought by plaintiffs, and one of the neighboring owners appealed, arguing the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act limited plaintiffs' private cause of action to a claim for contribution that required proof of defendants' actual discharge of contamination. The court agreed with the trial judge that an equitable remedy was appropriate -- and not precluded by the Spill Act -- and affirmed the judgment that compelled all the impacted property owners to initially share the cost of an investigation, subject to adjustment by later litigation if necessary. 

Tahisha Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC (A-69-15;

Tahisha Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC (A-69-15; 077125)

          Defendants’ non-payment of filing and arbitration fees
          amounted to a material breach of the DRA.   Defendants
          are therefore precluded from enforcing the arbitration
          provision, and the case will proceed in the courts.