DIANE S. LAPSLEY VS. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA, ET AL. (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION) (A-0958-19T3)

 DIANE S. LAPSLEY VS. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA, ET AL. (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION) (A-0958-19T3)

Petitioner Diane Lapsley appealed from an order of a judge of compensation concluding that injuries she sustained in a February 3, 2014 accident arose out of and in the course of her employment as a Sparta Township librarian pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146. After clocking out and exiting the library premises, petitioner was struck by a snowplow in an adjacent parking lot that happened to be owned by the township. The compensation judge concluded that petitioner's injuries were compensable pursuant to the premises rule, N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, which provides that "[e]mployment shall be deemed to commence when an employee arrives at the employer's place of employment to report for work and shall terminate when the employee leaves the employer's place of employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer . . . ."

The court held that a mechanical application of the premises rule in the context of a public-entity employer deviates from well-settled principles applicable to private employers and invites an overbroad and unwarranted expansion of public-entity liability for workers' compensation claims. The court identified employer-directed control of an employee's use of a parking lot as a critical element in the application of the premises rule. See Novis v. Rosenbluth, 138 N.J. 92, 93 (1994). An injury will be compensable if it is sustained while the employee is using the lot where the manner of ingress or egress is dictated by the employer, or in an area where the employee parks at the employer's direction. Conversely, use of a shared parking lot that accommodates multiple tenants, without specific instruction from an employer, is not sufficient to satisfy to the premises rule.

The stipulated facts of this case established that petitioner's employer exercised no control of its employee's use of the common-use parking lot. Petitioner was off-the-clock at the time of the accident and had exited the library premises. Library employees were not given any instructions about where in the subject lot to park or indeed whether to park in that particular lot, on the street, or anywhere else in town where parking may be available. Nor were library staff instructed on the manner of ingress or egress. The lot was shared with other municipal employees and members of the public alike.

Under these facts, the court concluded that there was no reasoned basis to depart from the general rule that the library's "use" of the common-use parking lot for its employees' benefit was not sufficient to satisfy the premises rule. Accordingly, the court reversed the compensation judge's order finding the accident was compensable.

CITY OF NEWARK VS. TOWNSHIP OF JEFFERSON (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (A-1303-19T1)

 CITY OF NEWARK VS. TOWNSHIP OF JEFFERSON (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (A-1303-19T1)

The tax court entered an October 18, 2019 judgment affirming tax assessments on approximately 4036 acres of watershed land owned by plaintiff City of Newark situated in defendant Township of Jefferson for the tax years 2009 to 2019. City of Newark v. Twp. of Jefferson, 31 N.J. Tax 303, 311-18 (Tax 2019). Rejecting the expert testimony of both parties' appraisers, the tax court found while plaintiff may have overcome the presumption of the correctness of the assessments, it failed to maintain its burden of proof to modify the assessments.

This court reversed, holding the assessment was defective and not entitled to the presumption of validity because it was primarily based on a settlement discussion rather than the value of the property. The assessment was also problematic because the assessor relied on another sale he failed to verify. The tax court made no findings regarding the validity of the assessment methodology and the record does not support its validity. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration and further findings on this issue and directed the tax court to make an independent finding of the value of the property for tax purposes.

TARTA LUNA PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL. VS. HARVEST RESTAURANTS GROUP, LLC, ET AL. (C-000101-16, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-4994-18T3)

 TARTA LUNA PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL. VS. HARVEST RESTAURANTS GROUP, LLC, ET AL. (C-000101-16, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-4994-18T3)

This litigation arises out of the lease of a building in which defendants-tenants intended to open a restaurant. The lease agreement contemplated an extensive rebuilding and repair of the premises. During the renovations, plaintiffs-landlord raised numerous issues regarding the quality of the construction. They eventually instituted suit seeking the termination of the lease and imposition of a forfeiture as well as an increase in rent. After a bench trial, the Chancery court entered judgment in favor of defendants, finding plaintiffs' claims meritless.

Nevertheless, the Chancery court considered plaintiffs' application for counsel and expert fees. The Chancery court determined there was no contractual or statutory basis for an award of fees. The trial court also recognized that defendants relied on their professionals – architects and engineers – as well as the municipal officials who approved the construction, issued permits and a certificate of occupancy. However, because "the safety of the public" was compromised by the faulty construction, the Chancery court found that equitable principles demanded the remedy of counsel fees. Therefore, in determining an award of fees was warranted by principles of equity, the trial court awarded plaintiffs nearly $1,000,000 in counsel and expert fees.

This court concluded that the general concept of public safety has not been recognized as an exception to the American rule and the policy preventing fee-shifting. There was no statutory or contractual basis for the award nor did the litigation fit into any exception under Rule 4:42-9. In addition, the Chancery court found defendants had not acted willfully or engaged in any intentional misconduct. Therefore, the panel concluded the award was not supported by equitable principles. The order granting counsel and expert fees is reversed.

TROY HAVILAND VS. LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, INC. (L-0782-19, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1349-19T3)

 TROY HAVILAND VS. LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, INC. (L-0782-19, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1349-19T3)

In this appeal, the court held that an in-house attorney employed under a multi-year contract, and who was subject to termination based only on cause as defined in the agreement, was not precluded by Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 to pursue contractual damages if wrongfully discharged. In reaching this decision, the court followed similar holdings in Nordling v. Northern State Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 1991), and Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, 444 P.3d 1185, 1191 (Wash. 2019), and found factually distinguishable the decision in Cohen v. Radio-Electronics Officers Union, Dist. 3, 146 N.J. 140 (1996), which limited an attorney's award of damages for a breach of contract to quantum merit.

In addition, the court concluded the trial court's award of $260,026.88 in damages was supported by sufficient credible evidence and made in accordance with applicable law. The court, however, remanded for the trial court to apply prejudgment interest to the damages award.

KIRK C. NELSON VS. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-1377-17, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-4580-18T3)

 KIRK C. NELSON VS. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-1377-17, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-4580-18T3)

In this appeal, the court held that an in-house attorney employed under a multi-year contract, and who was subject to termination based only on cause as defined in the agreement, was not precluded by Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 to pursue contractual damages if wrongfully discharged. In reaching this decision, the court followed similar holdings in Nordling v. Northern State Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 1991), and Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, 444 P.3d 1185, 1191 (Wash. 2019), and found factually distinguishable the decision in Cohen v. Radio-Electronics Officers Union, Dist. 3, 146 N.J. 140 (1996), which limited an attorney's award of damages for a breach of contract to quantum merit.

In addition, the court concluded the trial court's award of $260,026.88 in damages was supported by sufficient credible evidence and made in accordance with applicable law. The court, however, remanded for the trial court to apply prejudgment interest to the damages award.

New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (083801) (Essex County & Statewide) (A-72/73-19; 083801)

 New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (083801) (Essex County & Statewide) (A-72/73-19; 083801)

The Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Yannotti’s thoughtful opinion. The Court relies principally on the Appellate Division’s analysis of the plain language of the relevant insurance policies. 461 N.J. Super. at 454-57. The Court does not rely on the discussion of Appleman’s Rule or the doctrine of contra proferentem. See id. at 460-63.

MARCELLA SIMADIRIS VS. PATERSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT (L-1674-19, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0197-19T3)

 MARCELLA SIMADIRIS VS. PATERSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT (L-1674-19, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0197-19T3)

The trial court determined that a board of education's decision to certify tenure charges against plaintiff in private violated her alleged right to demand a public proceeding. The school district's appeal pitted that part of the Tenured Employees Hearing Law, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 to -25, which declares a charge against a tenured employee "shall no" be discussed by a board of education "at a public meeting," N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11, against that part of the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21, which permits a public body to exclude the public from personnel discussions "unless" the affected employee "request[s] in writing that the matter . . . be discussed at a public meeting," N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8). Because the Legislature's broad strokes in the Open Public Meetings Act were expressly subjected to exceptions existing in other legislation, N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(1), and because tenured employees have other greater procedural rights than non-tenured employees, the court held that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11's unambiguous declaration that such proceedings "shall not" take place in public – enacted nineteen days after enactment of the Open Public Meetings Act – demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend to allow tenured board-of-education employees the right – granted other public employees by N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8) – to demand a public hearing. For that reason, defendant was not required to serve this tenured employee with a Rice notice, see Rice v. Union Cnty. Reg'l H.S. Bd. of Educ., 155 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 1977), which serves the purpose of advising public employees of their right to demand a public hearing via N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8).

CHRIS DOE VS. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1651-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-5285-18T2)

 CHRIS DOE VS. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-1651-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-5285-18T2)

Plaintiff appeals the trial court's denial under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, to his right of his access to various records, including his own Rutgers University graduate student records, and his request for attorney's fees and costs (collectively "attorney's fees").

The court concludes OPRA only allows plaintiff to obtain copies of his own academic transcripts, discipline records, and financial records subject to redaction to preclude the identity of other students. The court remands for the trial court to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to any attorney's fees related to his efforts to obtain these records.

The court also remands for the trial court to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding plaintiff's entitlement to attorney's fees related to defendants' voluntary release of information pertaining to specific university professors' and administrators' disclosable records. No position is taken as to whether plaintiff is entitled to any attorney's fees that shall considered on remand. All other aspects of the trial court's order are affirmed.

JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1276-19T3)

 JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1276-19T3)

The court holds that a grand jury witness, including a law enforcement witness, has absolute immunity from a civil rights claim under New Jersey law for grand jury testimony that is alleged to have omitted relevant information. Accordingly, the court adopts and applies to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA), N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, the ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 367-69 (2012), which held that a witness testifying before a grand jury has absolute immunity from a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court did not decide whether a witness who lies to a grand jury has absolute immunity because there was no evidence that the witness in this case lied.

Consequently, the court affirmed an order granting summary judgment to a detective who was alleged to have violated the NJCRA in a civil action by failing to tell a grand jury certain information that may have raised questions about an eye witness' identification of a criminal defendant who was later acquitted at trial.

Elmer Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy (083379)(Hudson County & Statewide) (A-29-19;

 Elmer Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy (083379)(Hudson County & Statewide) (A-29-19; 083379)

None of the decisions identified by defendant satisfy the requirements of the good-faith defense under the plain language of N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2. The Court acknowledges, however, the dilemma faced by an employer such as defendant, which repeatedly prevailed in overtime disputes before subordinate Department employees but was unable to seek a ruling that would satisfy that statute because each of those disputes was resolved without further review. The Court respectfully suggests that the Department would further the Legislature’s intent if it instituted a procedure by which an employer in defendant’s position could obtain an opinion letter or other ruling clarifying its obligations under the WHL’s overtime provisions. The Court remands this matter for consideration of defendant’s argument that it is a trucking-industry employer within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(f) and for determination of whether defendant complied with the applicable WHL overtime standards in compensating its employees.

Metz Family Ltd. Partnership v. Township of Freehold, Docket Nos. 001064-2015; 000482-2016; 000783-2017

Metz Family Ltd. Partnership v. Township of Freehold, Docket Nos. 001064-2015; 000482-2016; 000783-2017

Tax Court: Metz Family Ltd. Partnership v. Township of Freehold, Docket Nos. 001064-2015; 000482-2016; 000783-2017;opinion by Sundar, J.T.C., decided October 20, 2020. For plaintiff - Daniel J. Pollak and Michael Rienzi (Brach Eichler, L.L.C. attorney); for defendant - Martin Allen and Wesley E. Buirkle (DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C., attorney); for the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and the Director, Division of Taxation - Abiola G. Miles and Michelline Capistrano Foster (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Held: Defendant’s motions to require joinder of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and the Director, Division of Taxation under R. 4:28-1 are granted. Only these two governmental entities can explain why they considered, verified, and certified the annual assessments in the defendant to be “reassessments” excepted from the application of the Chapter 123 ratio (or the average ratio), which is an issue of first impression and involves significant public interest.

B.B. VS. S. BRADLEY MELL, ET AL. (L-7200-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

B.B. VS. S. BRADLEY MELL, ET AL. (L-7200-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

Defendant Mell, a wealthy businessman, engaged in sexual relations with B.B. over a period of months when she was fifteen years old. Upon discovery, Mell was arrested and soon convicted of federal and state crimes; he is presently incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. B.B. commenced this action for damages against Mell and others and obtained an order attaching some of Mell's assets. Soon after, Mell sought an order permitting the payment of his attorneys in this civil action from the attached funds; the judge granted that motion and later entered another order fixing the amount of fees to be paid from the fund. The court granted B.B.'s motions for leave to appeal those two orders and reversed, holding that B.B. had a greater priority to the fund even though she has yet to obtain a judgment and that the equities preclude such an invasion of the fund, noting it would be perverse to allow Mell's expenses to be paid from the fund established through valid court procedures for the benefit of his victim.