The Commissioner of Education determined that a board of education could use unemployment benefits and payments from other employment that plaintiff, a tenured teacher, had received during a tenure-charge suspension period to offset outstanding back pay owed to him. Finding that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14, by its express language, authorizes a board to deduct "sums" the suspended teacher had received "by way of pay or salary from any substituted employment," the court held that unemployment benefits are not "sums" received "by way of pay or salary from any substituted employment" and the Commissioner erred in finding the board could deduct unemployment benefits from the back-pay award. Thus, the court reversed the portion of the Commissioner's final administrative decision regarding unemployment benefits. The court affirmed the Commissioner's determination that plaintiff's other employment constituted "substituted employment" and that the board could use payments from that substituted employment to offset any back pay owed to plaintiff.
Sunday, February 28, 2021
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
MACK-CALI REALTY CORP., ET AL. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-4903-18, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(A-3097-18)
Plaintiffs challenged Jersey City's adoption of a payroll tax ordinance that exempted from its calculation the "total remuneration" employers paid to Jersey City residents, and included in the calculation remuneration paid to employees who worked outside the city but were supervised by an employee in the city. Amendments to the Local Tax Authorization Act, N.J.S.A. 40:48C-1 to -42 (LTAA) in 2018 permitted the exemption of local residents and authorized the use of payroll tax revenue to augment Jersey City's loss of state educational aid resulting from 2018 amendments to the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA), N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-43 to -63. Jersey City was the only municipality that satisfied the statutory requirements. The Law Division judge upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance and amendments to the LTAA and dismissed the complaint.
The court affirmed in most respects. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the supervisor provision pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution potentially had merit and vacated dismissal of that count of the complaint. The court remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Anasia Maison v. NJ Transit Corporation and Kelvin Coats (083484) (Essex County & Statewide) (A-34/35-19; 083484)
Anasia Maison v. NJ Transit Corporation and Kelvin Coats (083484) (Essex County & Statewide) (A-34/35-19; 083484)
NJ Transit and its bus drivers are held to the same negligence standard under the TCA as other common carriers -- to exercise the utmost caution to protect their passengers as would a very careful and prudent person under similar circumstances. See N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a), :3-1(a). None of the TCA immunities defendants asserted abrogated their common-carrier duty to protect Maison from the dangerous and threatening conduct of the teenage passengers. The TCA leaves no doubt that an allocation of fault between a negligent public entity and its employee and an intentional tortfeasor is mandated. See N.J.S.A. 59:9-3.1. Nevertheless, to ensure that defendants’ duty to protect their passenger is not unfairly diluted or diminished, the trial court must give the jury clear guidance on the factors to consider in allocating degrees of fault. See Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250, 274-75, 281-83 (2003).
Jed Goldfarb v. David Solimine (083256)(Essex County & Statewide) (A-24-19;
Jed Goldfarb v. David Solimine (083256)(Essex County & Statewide) (A-24-19; 083256)
The Securities Law does not bar plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim for reliance damages. The Court affirms the liability judgment on that claim and the remand for a new damages trial in which plaintiff will have the opportunity to prove reliance damages. He is not entitled to benefit-of-the-bargain damages. To the extent that the Appellate Division relied on an alternative basis for its liability holding -- that a later-adopted federal law “family office” exception has been incorporated into our Securities Law -- the Court rejects that reasoning and voids that portion of the court’s analysis.
In the Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees (085186)(Statewide) (M-550-20
In the Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees (085186)(Statewide) (M-550-20; 085186)
*Section 19(f) of the CJRA offers a path for potential relief under the present circumstances. Under that provision, N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f), individual defendants can apply to reopen detention hearings if they can present information that was not known at the time of the initial hearing and that “has a material bearing” on the release decision.
Sunday, February 14, 2021
NEW YORK MORTGAGE TRUST VS. ANTHONY E. DEELY ET AL. (F-043539-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1261-19)
NEW YORK MORTGAGE TRUST VS. ANTHONY E. DEELY ET AL. (F-043539-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-1261-19)
In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the court adopts the approach of the Third Restatement of Property: Mortgages that equitable subrogation is appropriate when loan proceeds from refinancing satisfies the first mortgage, the second mortgage is paid in full as part of the transaction, and the transaction is based on a discharge of the second mortgage, so long as the junior lienor, here defendant, is not materially prejudiced. The court concludes that under such circumstances, equitable subrogation should not be precluded by the new lender's actual knowledge of the intervening mortgage. By limiting the first lien priority of plaintiff's mortgage to the balance due on the prior first mortgage at closing, the superior lien balance owed by the borrowers was not increased. Under these circumstances, the junior lienholder is not materially prejudiced by subrogating plaintiff's mortgage.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON V. MARIANNE CORRADETTI ET AL. (A-5334-16T1)
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON V. MARIANNE CORRADETTI ET AL. (A-5334-16T1)
Following a trial in this residential foreclosure matter, the Chancery Division granted judgment in defendants' favor based on findings that the mortgage and related closing documents were forged, and plaintiff mortgagee failed to present evidence the court found credible and reliable otherwise supporting the legal and equitable claims asserted in the complaint. On appeal, the majority determined the Chancery Division's findings were supported by substantial credible evidence, and plaintiff otherwise failed to present evidence the court found credible supporting its claims. The majority deferred to the court's credibility determinations and findings of fact and affirmed but remanded for the court to allow plaintiff to seek reimbursement from defendants for monies paid on defendants' behalf for taxes and insurance.
The dissent concluded the Chancery Division's finding that the mortgage documents were forged was not supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence, and, for that reason, the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial or dismissed without prejudice
Kim Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc.(083726)(Statewide) (A-48-19; 083726)
Kim Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc.(083726)(Statewide) (A-48-19; 083726)
The injury sustained by Kim Goulding while volunteering at her employer- sponsored event is compensable because, as to Goulding, the event was not a social or recreational activity. Even if N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 was applicable here, Goulding would still have satisfied the two-part exception set forth in that statute. Her role at the event, which was planned to be held annually, was the same as her role as an employee, and but for her employment at Friendship House, Goulding would not have been asked to volunteer and would not have been injured. Thus, Goulding’s injury was “a regular incident of employment.” See ibid. Additionally, Friendship House received a benefit from Family Fun Day “beyond improvement in employee health and morale.” See ibid . The event was not a closed event for the Friendship House team. Rather, it was an outreach event to celebrate and benefit Friendship House’s clients, creating goodwill in the community.
Monday, February 8, 2021
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON V. MARIANNE CORRADETTI ET AL. (A-5334-16T1)
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON V. MARIANNE CORRADETTI ET AL. (A-5334-16T1)
Following a trial in this residential foreclosure matter, the Chancery Division granted judgment in defendants' favor based on findings that the mortgage and related closing documents were forged, and plaintiff mortgagee failed to present evidence the court found credible and reliable otherwise supporting the legal and equitable claims asserted in the complaint. On appeal, the majority determined the Chancery Division's findings were supported by substantial credible evidence, and plaintiff otherwise failed to present evidence the court found credible supporting its claims. The majority deferred to the court's credibility determinations and findings of fact and affirmed but remanded for the court to allow plaintiff to seek reimbursement from defendants for monies paid on defendants' behalf for taxes and insurance.
The dissent concluded the Chancery Division's finding that the mortgage documents were forged was not supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence, and, for that reason, the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial or dismissed without prejudice
IN RE PROTEST OF CONTRACT AWARD FOR PROJECT A1150-18, ETC. (DIVISION OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION) (A-1193-19T1)
IN RE PROTEST OF CONTRACT AWARD FOR PROJECT A1150-18, ETC. (DIVISION OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION) (A-1193-19T1)
This appeal from the Division of Property Management and Construction's (DPMC) rejection of a bid protest and award of the contract for the Comprehensive Renovation and Restoration of the New Jersey Executive State House project to the lowest bidder presents an issue of first impression—whether a prime contractor bidder is required to name its building control systems subcontractor in its bid. See N.J.S.A. 52:32-2.
The DPMC and the court denied the protestor's earlier applications for a stay of the decision and a request to accelerate the appeal. Significant expenses were incurred by the successful bidder, and substantial work on the project progressed, while the appeal was pending. This included the award of thirty-six subcontracts.
The court found setting aside the contract award would severely impact the Executive State House, jeopardize the work already completed, the project in general, and risk damage to the historic structure. Therefore, it would be contrary to the public interest to void the contract even for any remaining uncompleted portion of the construction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal as moot.
Because the issues raised arguably involve a matter of public importance capable of repetition while evading review, the court addressed the merits. The court found no merit in appellant's arguments, holding that the DPMC properly interpreted the subcontractor naming provisions of N.J.S.A. 52:32-2. Bidders are only required to identify subcontractors who would install the actual HVACR system but not those who would engage in a separate trade by performing the more specialized work of installing building management control systems.
H.V.D.M. VS. R.W. (FD-0727-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-2877-19T1)
H.V.D.M. VS. R.W. (FD-0727-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-2877-19T1)
In this appeal the court addressed the predicate state court findings necessary for a federal petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). Specifically, a state court must analyze the five prongs of the federal regulations set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c) (2020) under state law before an applicant can file a petition to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for SIJS. The trial court erroneously concluded that a child was not dependent on New Jersey courts due to the existence of a Canadian custody order that awarded custody to plaintiff, her paternal grandmother a New Jersey resident who registered the Canadian custody order in New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (NJUCCJEA), N.J.S.A. 2A:34-79.
The court disagreed with the trial court's determination that "the juvenile is not dependent on this court and has not been placed in the custody of an agency or individual appointed by this court." The trial court here used the conjunction "and," but the federal regulations and federal statute use the disjunctive "or."
Specifically, prong two provides that the state court must determine whether the "juvenile is dependent on the court or has been placed under the custody of an agency or an individual appointed by the court." H.S.P., 223 N.J. at 210 (referring to 8 C.F.R. § 204.11(c)(3) (2020); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)).
The court reversed and remanded the matter to the Family Part for further proceedings
Kim Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc.(083726)(Statewide) (A-48-19
Kim Goulding v. NJ Friendship House, Inc.(083726)(Statewide) (A-48-19; 083726)
The injury sustained by Kim Goulding while volunteering at her employer- sponsored event is compensable because, as to Goulding, the event was not a social or recreational activity. Even if N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 was applicable here, Goulding would still have satisfied the two-part exception set forth in that statute. Her role at the event, which was planned to be held annually, was the same as her role as an employee, and but for her employment at Friendship House, Goulding would not have been asked to volunteer and would not have been injured. Thus, Goulding’s injury was “a regular incident of employment.” See ibid. Additionally, Friendship House received a benefit from Family Fun Day “beyond improvement in employee health and morale.” See ibid . The event was not a closed event for the Friendship House team. Rather, it was an outreach event to celebrate and benefit Friendship House’s clients, creating goodwill in the community.
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Marianne Corradetti (084029)(Cape May County & Statewide) (A-81-19; 084029)
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Marianne Corradetti (084029)(Cape May County & Statewide) (A-81-19; 084029)
The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Accurso’s dissenting opinion. The Court remands for a retrial
Moshe Rozenblit v. Marcia V. Lyles (083434) (Hudson County & Statewide) (A-41/42-19
Moshe Rozenblit v. Marcia V. Lyles (083434) (Hudson County & Statewide) (A-41/42-19; 083434)
The Board’s payment of salaries and benefits to the releasees did not exceed its statutory grant of authority. The Board’s agreement to the CNA’s release time provisions is authorized by the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:30-7, construed in conjunction with two related provisions of the Education Code, N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4 and N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(c), and with a core provision of the Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-2. Further, the release time serves a public purpose and is so consonant with the accomplishment of that purpose that it does not offend the State Constitution