JASON DEVER VS. DEBRA HOWELL (FD-05-0386-11, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0468-17T3)

JASON DEVER VS. DEBRA HOWELL (FD-05-0386-11, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0468-17T3)

This case involves the father's attempt to relocate the children to another State over the mother's objection. He relocated anyway without obtaining an order permitting the move. This court held that N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 required him to obtain an order permitting the removal before the actual relocation. On the mother's later motion, the judge ordered the father to return the children. In upholding the judge's refusal to do a best interests analysis on the mother's motion, this court concluded that the time for the judge to determine whether plaintiff had established "cause" for the removal of the children would have been before the relocation occurred, and that the father had the ultimate burden of proof.

PALISADIUM MANAGEMENT CORP. VS. BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK CARLTON CORP. VS. BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (A-4370-15T4)

PALISADIUM MANAGEMENT CORP. VS. BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK CARLTON CORP. VS. BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (A-4370-15T4)

The panel considered the appeals of owners of two adjacent tax lots on the site of the former Palisades Amusement Park in Cliffside Park from Tax Court judgments affirming the 2011-2013 tax assessments on the properties. The Tax Court found plaintiffs had overcome the presumption of the validity of the assessments; rejected the Borough's cost approach for valuing the property; rejected the reliability of improvement costs generated by computer software; accepted plaintiffs' expert's hybrid approach to valuation but found the appraiser lacked adequate objective evidence to support his adjustments; and determined there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to permit the court to make an independent finding of true value, resulting in the assessments being affirmed. The panel affirms, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Fiamingo in her written opinion, which is reported at 29 N.J. Tax 245 (Tax 2016).

LINDA COWLEY, ET AL. VS. VIRTUA HEALTH SYSTEM, ET AL. (L-3616-16,

LINDA COWLEY, ET AL. VS. VIRTUA HEALTH SYSTEM, ET AL. (L-3616-16, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-4004-16T4)

In this appeal, plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their medical malpractice complaint for failure to serve an affidavit of merit. The motion judge rejected plaintiffs' argument that the "common knowledge" exception relieved them of that obligation because the nurses who cared for one of the plaintiffs failed to take any action when a nasogastric (NG) tube that was properly inserted into her, in accordance with a physician's order, became dislodged and allegedly caused her to suffer serious injuries. The motion judge found the fact that the tube was initially inserted in accordance with a physician's order, to be "critical in making this determination" and changed "this matter from a case where a jury with ordinary knowledge and experience could make a determination . . . to a standard of care case that requires expert testimony" because "a jury [could not] make a determination . . . without knowing what . . . a nurse [should] do" when a [NG] tube is inserted pursuant to an order but subsequently comes out.

The panel disagreed and concluded that the nurses' failure to take any action – not even contacting the physician who ordered that the tube be inserted – demonstrated that a health care provider failed to adhere to a doctor's order and therefore satisfied the purposes of the Affidavit of Merit Statute by establishing that plaintiffs' claim had sufficient merit under the common knowledge exception to proceed.