NEWARK MORNING LEDGER CO., PUBLISHER OF THE STARLEDGER VS. NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY A-1810-10T1

NEWARK MORNING LEDGER CO., PUBLISHER OF THE STARLEDGER

VS. NEW JERSEY SPORTS & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY

A-1810-10T1

We are asked to examine the scope of certain exemptions

from the disclosure requirements set forth in the Open Public

Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. We conclude

disclosure of the terms of the licensing agreements for use of

the IZOD Center, a state-owned facility, is mandated by OPRA.

The redacted terms relating to the use of the arena do not fall

within the scope of "trade secrets" or "proprietary commercial

or financial information" as used in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

Further, disclosure of the details regarding the licensing fees

and other remunerative arrangements would not afford an

advantage to other venues competing for bookings because they

are widely known among those involved in this branch of the

entertainment industry, defeating defendant's claims of

confidentiality. 11-30-11

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES V. T.I., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.L.M. A-2850-10T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES V.

T.I., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.L.M.

A-2850-10T3

In this appeal from an order terminating parental rights,

we are asked to consider the definition of "feasible" under the

Kinship Legal Guardianship (KLG) statute, N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -

7. We conclude that, when a caregiver in a case brought by the

Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) unequivocally

asserts a desire to adopt, the finding required for a KLG that

"adoption of the child is neither feasible nor likely" cannot be

met. 11-28-11

IN THE MATTER OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010, ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR IN THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH AMBOY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY A-2499-10T1

IN THE MATTER OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010, ELECTION FOR

THE OFFICE OF MAYOR IN THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH AMBOY,

MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

A-2499-10T1

This case considers an election contest pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 19:29-1 and addresses, among other things, issues of

domicile and late amendments to petitions under N.J.S.A. 19:29-

5. Further, we address the requirements for voter registration

when applying for driver's license renewal at the Division of

Motor Vehicles under N.J.S.A. 19:31-6(b) and N.J.S.A. 39:2-3.2.

We hold that citizens who are accorded a voter registration

opportunity when obtaining or renewing a driver's license must

complete the voter registration application in order to become a

registered voter. 11-23-11

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS. I.S. IN THE MATTER OF N.S. AND S.S. A-5793-09T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS.

I.S.

IN THE MATTER OF N.S. AND S.S.

A-5793-09T3

We clarify our earlier decision in New Jersey Division of

Youth and Family Services v. I.S., 422 N.J. Super. 52 (App. Div.

2011). We state that our reference to the trial judge's

finding, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that I.S. was

unable to care for her daughters, was illustrative of the

quality of proof presented rather than our alteration of the

preponderance of the evidence standard of proof governing abuse

or neglect proceedings under Title 9.

We also clarify that proceedings under Title 30 are

governed by the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof,

except where the Division seeks an order terminating parental

rights. In such cases, the Division is required to prove that

termination is in the best interests of the child by clear and

convincing evidence. 11-23-11

KANE PROPERTIES, L.L.C. VS. CITY OF HOBOKKEN, ET AL. A-3903-10T4

KANE PROPERTIES, L.L.C. VS. CITY OF HOBOKKEN, ET AL.

A-3903-10T4 11-16-11

Plaintiff, a developer, obtained variance relief from the

Hoboken Board of Adjustment, but that relief was largely

overturned on the objector's appeal to the Hoboken City Council.

Shortly after the Board issued its decision granting the

variances, the objector's attorney became the Hoboken

Corporation Counsel. Despite having recused himself, the

attorney participated, albeit to a limited extent, in the appeal

proceedings before the Council. On the facts presented, we held

that even that limited degree of participation tainted the

Council's decision, requiring a remand to the Council and

reconsideration of the appeal ab initio.

ROCKAWAY SHOPRITE ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. CITY OF LINDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDEN, ET AL. A-1345-10T4

ROCKAWAY SHOPRITE ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. CITY OF LINDEN

AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDEN, ET AL.

A-1345-10T4 11-14-11

A public notice of a rezoning ordinance purporting to

effect a substantial alteration in the character of a district

by creating entirely new zones with different uses, that merely

advises the zoning is being amended as to properties identified

by common name and lot and block number, is legally deficient

under N.J.S.A. 40:49-2.1 because it fails to apprise the

interested public of what exactly is being proposed.

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS. D.P. AND O.B. IN THE MATTER OF V.B. A-4087-10T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS.

D.P. AND O.B. IN THE MATTER OF V.B.

A-4087-10T4 11-03-11

We reviewed resource parents' appeal of an order denying

their motion to intervene in a best interests hearing, which

considered whether to remove the twenty-month old child from the

resource home, her primary home since birth, or to place her

with a relative. On appeal, the resource parents assert the

trial court erroneously denied intervention, disregarding their

status as "indispensible parties" and their standing as the

child's "psychological parents."

We affirmed, concluding the right to notice of proceedings

and to inform the court granted to resource parents by the

Legislature in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.19a, does not impart a legal

interest or an expectation to engage experts, demand discovery,

appear in the action, or cross-examine witnesses. We are

convinced the limited and temporary character of foster care

remains the legislative policy of this State. The trial court

fully abided all statutory provisions governing a resource

parent's participation in litigation involving a child entrusted

to their care by the Division, granting the resource parents all

process they were due.