TIMOTHY ELLIS VS. HILTON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL. (L-6083-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0793-16T3)

TIMOTHY ELLIS VS. HILTON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL. (L-6083-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0793-16T3)

In this appeal, the court was asked to determine whether sidewalk liability applies to an owner of a vacant church because in Gray v. Caldwell Wood Products, Inc., 425 N.J. Super. 496 (App. Div. 2012), we imposed liability on the owner of a vacant, boarded-up building that had been used for commercial purposes. For the reasons that follow, we hold that a vacant church maintains its status as a noncommercial property, not subject to a commercial property's sidewalk liability. We reject any reading of Gray that imposes liability on owners of vacant residential or noncommercial properties that have not been put to any commercial use.

E&H STEEL CORPORATION VS. PSEG FOSSIL, LLC, ETC. (L-0516-11, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1600-15T1)

E&H STEEL CORPORATION VS. PSEG FOSSIL, LLC, ETC. (L-0516-11, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1600-15T1)

The New Jersey Rules of Evidence and supporting case law do not require that lay testimony and even lay opinion testimony, although based on scientific, technical or even specialized knowledge, automatically triggers the need for the designation of the witness providing that testimony as an expert. The fact that a person with personal knowledge of facts relevant to a dispute may also qualify as an expert in the particular field associated with those facts does not convert his or testimony into expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703.

William J. Brennan v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (A-62-16;

William J. Brennan v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (078074) (Bergen County and Statewide) (A-62-16; 078074)

Courts are not required to analyze the Doe factors each time a party asserts that a privacy interest exists. A party must first present a colorable claim that public access to records would invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not reasonable to expect that details about a public auction of government property will remain private. OPRA calls for disclosure of records relating to the auction

HARRY SCHEELER VS. ATLANTIC COUNTY MUNICIPAL JOINT INSURANCE FUND, ET AL. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW VS. ATLANTIC CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. BARRY SCHEELER VS. CITY OF CAPE MAY, ET AL. (L-0990-15, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE; L-0832-15, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE; L-0444-15, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-2092-15T2

HARRY SCHEELER VS. ATLANTIC COUNTY MUNICIPAL JOINT INSURANCE FUND, ET AL. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW VS. ATLANTIC CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. BARRY SCHEELER VS. CITY OF CAPE MAY, ET AL. (L-0990-15, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE; L-0832-15, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE; L-0444-15, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-2092-15T2/A-2704-15T2/A-2716-15T2)

The right to request and obtain government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) is not limited to citizens of New Jersey. According, the out-of-state plaintiffs had standing to pursue their OPRA claims against the public entity defendants in these three cases.

JOHN S. WISNIEWSKI, ETC. VS. PHIL MURPHY, ET AL. IN THE MATTER OF THE NJEDA/STATE LEASE REVENUE BONDS 2017 SERIES AND STATE LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS 2017 SERIES (STATE HOUSE PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF STATE CAPITOL JOINT MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MOTION APPROVING THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENOVATION OF THE EXECUTIVE STATE HOUSE. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENOVATION OF THE EXECUTIVE STATE HOUSE. (L-1002-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE, NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND STATE CAPITOL JOINT MANAGEMENT COMMISSION)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-4689-16T2/

JOHN S. WISNIEWSKI, ETC. VS. PHIL MURPHY, ET AL. IN THE MATTER OF THE NJEDA/STATE LEASE REVENUE BONDS 2017 SERIES AND STATE LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS 2017 SERIES (STATE HOUSE PROJECT) AND IN THE MATTER OF STATE CAPITOL JOINT MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MOTION APPROVING THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENOVATION OF THE EXECUTIVE STATE HOUSE. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENOVATION OF THE EXECUTIVE STATE HOUSE. (L-1002-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE, NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND STATE CAPITOL JOINT MANAGEMENT COMMISSION)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-4689-16T2/A-4693-16T2/A-4698-16T2)

These consolidated appeals involve a challenge to decisions by two state agencies to finance a comprehensive renovation of the State Capitol complex. The agencies resolved to issue $300 million in bonds and to repay the bonds with rental payments pursuant to a lease of the State Capitol complex.

Plaintiff John S. Wisniewski, then a state legislator, filed a complaint challenging the agencies' actions on the basis that they violated the Debt Limitation Clause (DLC) of the New Jersey Constitution. At the time the complaint was filed, the bonds had already been sold and distributed into the marketplace. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the complaint as moot.

In No. A-4689-16, plaintiff appeals the trial court's determination that his complaint is moot. In Nos. A-4693-16 and A-4698-16, he appeals the final agency decisions. The panel finds the appeals are technically moot. Notwithstanding, the panel addresses the merits because the issue raised is a matter of significant public importance that is capable of repetition while evading review.

The panel concludes the issuance of the bonds to finance the renovations of the State Capitol complex did not violate the DLC. The panel further concludes the State Capitol Joint Management Commission acted within its delegated authority in approving the renovations and entering into the lease/leaseback agreement, and the New Jersey Economic Development Authority possessed the requisite authority to issue the bonds to fund the renovations.

RAUL AUGUSTIN JIMENEZ, ET AL. VS. RAUL ANIBAL JIMENEZ (L-0025-12, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2495-16T1

RAUL AUGUSTIN JIMENEZ, ET AL. VS. RAUL ANIBAL JIMENEZ (L-0025-12, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2495-16T1)

This appeal poses the legal question of whether N.J.S.A. 46:3-17.4, a statute that became effective in 1988, precludes a spouse's unsecured creditor from obtaining the forced partition of real property the spouse and his non-debtor spouse own together as tenants by the entirety. The panel affirms the trial court's ruling that the statute prohibits such non-consensual partition. The statute supersedes and nullifies earlier case law, such as Newman v. Chase, 70 N.J. 254, 262 (1976), which had allowed such a creditor's remedy in certain equitable circumstances.

STUART GOLDMAN VS. CRITTER CONTROL OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. STUART GOLDMAN VS. MADISON CARLSTROM, ET AL. (L-1852-16 AND L-1173-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-1392-16T2/A-3906-16T2)

STUART GOLDMAN VS. CRITTER CONTROL OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. STUART GOLDMAN VS. MADISON CARLSTROM, ET AL. (L-1852-16 AND L-1173-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-1392-16T2/A-3906-16T2)

In these appeals, consolidated for our opinion, plaintiff sued defendants under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCAA), N.J.S.A. 4:22-11.1 to -60, to recover civil penalties for acts that he contended constituted animal cruelty under its provisions. Plaintiff lacked standing to sue in his individual capacity and the cases were dismissed. He contends the complaints were filed as qui tam actions under N.J.S.A. 4:22-26 which provided, in relevant part, that a person who violates the PCAA shall pay a civil penalty according to a schedule in the statute "to be sued for and recovered, with costs, in a civil action by any person in the name of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals".

We decline to interpret N.J.S.A. 4:22-26 as authorizing private citizens, who otherwise would not have standing, to sue for civil penalties under the PCAA in qui tam actions against other parties, who they alleged may have committed acts of animal cruelty. The language relied on by plaintiff does not signal authority for qui tam litigation in light of the PCAA's other provisions nor was it supported by the legislative history or case law. We affirm the dismissal of these cases for lack of standi

IN RE ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4, 17:1-7.5 AND 17:1-7.10 (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DIVISION OF PENSION AND BENEFITS) (A-2171-16T3)

IN RE ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4, 17:1-7.5 AND 17:1-7.10 (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DIVISION OF PENSION AND BENEFITS) (A-2171-16T3)

The New Jersey Education Association challenged regulations pertaining to the disability retirement process for various State retirement systems. In upholding most of the regulations – except those requiring applicants to pay for subsequent independent medical examinations and related addenda – this court maintained the requirement that eligibility for disability retirement benefits requires members to show that they cannot work due to a disability.

In the Matter of State and School Employees' Health Benefits Commissions’ Implementation of In the Matter of Philip Yucht (Statewide) (A-21-17;

In the Matter of State and School Employees' Health Benefits Commissions’ Implementation of In the Matter of Philip Yucht (Statewide) (A-21-17; 079966)

Because significant questions exist concerning the extent of the notice actually provided, either by the Commissions or through their agents to active employees, former employees, and retirees, a hearing is necessary. The hearing is to be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in this opinion and, at the hearing, the adequacy of the content of the notice can be raised.

Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories Inc. Asher Adelman (Sussex County and Statewide) (A-39-16; 078597)

Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories Inc. Asher Adelman (Sussex County and Statewide) (A-39-16; 078597)

The single publication rule applies to an internet article. However, if a material and substantive change is made to the article’s defamatory content, then the modified article will constitute a republication, restarting the statute of limitations. In this case, there are genuine issues of disputed fact concerning whether Adelman made a material and substantive change to the original article, and the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the defamation action based on the single publication rule. However, the modified article is entitled to the protection of the fair report privilege. The article is a full, fair, and accurate recitation of a court-filed complaint. The trial court properly dismissed the defamation action, and on that basis the Court affirms the Appellate Division’s judgment

DCPP VS. T.D., R.C. AND R.G., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.G., B.C. AND A.G. (FG-20-0040-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-4918-15T1/A-4923-15T1)

DCPP VS. T.D., R.C. AND R.G., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.G., B.C. AND A.G. (FG-20-0040-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-4918-15T1/A-4923-15T1)

The New Jersey Division Of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), and the Law Guardian on behalf of the two young children, appeal from the Family Part's order denying termination of parental rights following an extended eighteen-month trial at which twelve witnesses testified and hundreds of exhibits were admitted into evidence. This appeal involves the termination of parental rights of T.D., a mother suffering from multiple sclerosis and R.C., the father of her two youngest children, born in 2012 and 2014, and removed from the care of their parents shortly after birth. The trial judge found, in particular, that the Division did not provide meaningful services to the mother, who uses a wheelchair. Considering the limited standard of review of a decision not to terminate parental rights, we affirm.

FELICIA PUGLIESE VS. STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY EDGARD CHAVEZ VS. STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY (COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-3689-15T1/A-5527-15T1)

FELICIA PUGLIESE VS. STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY EDGARD CHAVEZ VS. STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY (COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION)(CONSOLIDATED) (A-3689-15T1/A-5527-15T1)

In Pugliese v. State-Operated School District of City of Newark, 440 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2015), the court vacated and remanded for reconsideration anew an arbitrator's award sustaining tenure charges against appellants. In this appeal, the court had to construe N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 and determine what impact its decision to remand had on the suspended educators' entitlement to back pay while the remand was pending. The statute provides for an educator's suspension without pay for 120 days or until the issuance of a final determination of the disputed tenure charges, whichever is sooner. If the matter is not resolved within 120 days, compensation must resume until a determination is reached. In this case, the court concluded that the entitlement to compensation after 120 days continues under the statute despite the fact there was an initial award terminating employment that was vacated and remanded, without a dismissal of the tenure charges.

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, ETC. VS. STEVEN LONEGAN (L-2169-11, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(A-1767-16T3)

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, ETC. VS. STEVEN LONEGAN (L-2169-11, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(A-1767-16T3)

In this case, we affirm the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's qui tam complaint which alleged defendant Steven Lonegan violated the New Jersey False Claims Act (FCA), N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-1 to -18, by submitting a false statement in a request for public campaign funds. Although the trial court dismissed on other grounds, we affirm the grant of summary judgment because we hold plaintiff lacks standing to bring the FCA complaint. We conclude the record clearly shows plaintiff is not the original source of the information supporting the allegations in his complaint.

NRG REMA LLC, ET AL. VS. CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS CORP., ET AL. CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS CORP. VS. NRG REMA LLC, ET AL. (L-3587-1

NRG REMA LLC, ET AL. VS. CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS CORP., ET AL. CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS CORP. VS. NRG REMA LLC, ET AL. (L-3587-15 AND L-0344-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-5432-15T3/A-0567-16T3)

In these appeals, the court reviewed orders compelling arbitration because the automobile sales contracts executed by plaintiffs included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes. Although the record revealed disputed facts about contract-formation issues that the trial courts must be resolved before arbitration may be compelled, the court also recognized there was no dispute that the parties mutually agreed to rescind those sales contracts. Consequently, among other things, the court held that the trial judges erred in compelling arbitration of any claims relating to the agreements to rescind, which did not contain arbitration provisions. The orders under review were reversed and both cases remanded for trial court proceedings to determine, among other things, whether plaintiffs' claims were based on the sales contracts or on the agreements to rescind.

SAVE CAMDEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL. VS. CAMDEN CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-1552-16,

SAVE CAMDEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL. VS. CAMDEN CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-1552-16, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0133-16T2)

In this appeal the court interprets two statutes concerning the right of Camden citizens to vote on the classification of their school district. That vote will determine whether members of the Camden City Board of Education (Board) are elected or appointed by the mayor. Plaintiffs contend that a vote on that issue was required in April 2014, under a 2010 amendment to the Municipal Rehabilitation and Economic Recovery Act (MRERA), N.J.S.A. 52:27BBB-63.1(c). Defendants counter that because the school district was placed into full State intervention in 2013, the classification vote is not required until the district satisfies certain performance indicators under the Quality Single Accountability Continuum Act (QSAC), N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-49(e). MRERA and QSAC contain provisions that set forth different frameworks for school district classification votes.

The court holds that the 2010 amendment to MRERA governs because its language is clear in granting Camden citizens the right to a school district classification vote, and nothing in QSAC restricts that right. Granting Camden citizens the right to a school district classification vote does not interfere with the State's full intervention because the Board will continue to serve in an advisory role until the conditions of QSAC are satisfied. Accordingly, the trial court's August 15, 2016 order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint is reversed. The case is remanded with direction that the trial court conduct a hearing within thirty days to determine when the school district classification vote will be held.

JANELL GOFFE VS. FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORP., ET AL. SASHA ROBINSON, ET AL. VS. MALL CHEVROLET, INC. (L-4162-16

JANELL GOFFE VS. FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORP., ET AL. SASHA ROBINSON, ET AL. VS. MALL CHEVROLET, INC. (L-4162-16 AND L-4122-16, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-2658-16T4/A-2659-16T4)

In these appeals, the court reviewed orders compelling arbitration because the automobile sales contracts executed by plaintiffs included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes. Although the record revealed disputed facts about contract-formation issues that the trial courts must be resolved before arbitration may be compelled, the court also recognized there was no dispute that the parties mutually agreed to rescind those sales contracts. Consequently, among other things, the court held that the trial judges erred in compelling arbitration of any claims relating to the agreements to rescind, which did not contain arbitration provisions. The orders under review were reversed and both cases remanded for trial court proceedings to determine, among other things, whether plaintiffs' claims were based on the sales contracts or on the agreements to rescind

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Rochelle Hendricks ( (A-22-16

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Rochelle Hendricks (  (A-22-16; 077885)  Judicial review is premature because factual disputes require resolution before the Secretary can make a properly informed decision on the grant applications. Because an informed administrative decision could not have been made without the benefit of a proper record, the matter is remanded to the Secretary, in order that a contested case proceeding be conducted prior to the ultimate administrative decision of the Secretary concerning the challenged grants