DANIEL SCHULMANN, ET AL. VS. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION A-2089-10T3

DANIEL SCHULMANN, ET AL. VS. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY           DIVISION, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION           A-2089-10T3 

The taxpayer used his personal funds to pay commissions owed by two S corporations. He and his wife then deducted the commission expenses from the S corporation income that they reported on their personal income tax returns. Affirming the reported opinion of the Tax Court, we held that the taxpayer could not disregard the corporate form by taking personal deductions for paying corporate obligations. The attempted deductions also violated the rule against "cross-netting" of losses, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 54A:5-2. 12-06-11

ANIMAL PROTECTION LEAGUE OF NEW JERSEY, THE BEAR EDUCATION AND RESOURCE GROUP, ET AL. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION("NJDEP"),

ANIMAL PROTECTION LEAGUE OF NEW JERSEY, THE BEAR EDUCATION AND RESOURCE GROUP, ET AL. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION("NJDEP"), BOB MARTIN, ET AL. A-1603-10T2

     On this appeal challenging the validity of the Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (CBBMP) adopted by respondent New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, we conclude that while there may be disagreements as to available data and its interpretation, under our standard of review we defer to agency findings that are based on sufficient evidence in the record.  We further conclude that the agency findings here meet that standard.  Most important, we determine that appellants have failed to demonstrate that respondents acted arbitrarily or capriciously or in bad faith.  We further find that appellants have failed to demonstrate any procedural deficiencies supporting invalidation of the CBBMP.  Accordingly, we affirm.  12-01-11 

NEW PROVIDENCE APARTMENTS CO., L.L.C. VS. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF NEW PROVIDENCE, ET AL. A-2924-10T4

 NEW PROVIDENCE APARTMENTS CO., L.L.C. VS. MAYOR AND           COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF NEW PROVIDENCE, ET AL.           A-2924-10T4 

A municipal ordinance that imposes a $100 annual fee per apartment unit for sewer service upon owners of apartment houses, but does not impose this fee upon owners of single- family houses, complies with the statutory mandate that sewer fees shall be "uniform and equitable for the same types and classes of use and service" and the equal protection guarantees of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, because the fee is reasonable designed to reduce the gross disparity in the contributions to the costs of sewer service derived from real estate taxes paid by apartment owners and owners of single- family houses.  12-01-11 

MICHAEL C. SENISCH VS. JAMES CARLINO, ET AL. A-6218-09T3

MICHAEL C. SENISCH VS. JAMES CARLINO, ET AL.           A-6218-09T3 

     Pursuant to the 2005 "Health Care Professional Responsibility and Reporting Enhancement Act" (colloquially called the "Cullen Act"), N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c, and also pursuant to prior case law establishing a qualified immunity for truthful job references by a former employer, defendants could not be held liable in a civil lawsuit for responding to a reference request with negative information from the personnel file of plaintiff, a physician's assistant.  Defendants were not required to include in the reference plaintiff's version of the circumstances of his termination since the settlement of a prior CEPA and LAD lawsuit he brought did not include an admission of wrongdoing by defendant former employer.  12-01-11  

Michael McDade, et al. v. Rodolfo Siazon, et al. (067086; A-59-10)

Michael McDade, et al. v. Rodolfo Siazon, et al.           (067086; A-59-10) 

          In asserting a claim against the Egg Harbor Township           Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) under the New           Jersey Tort Claims Act, plaintiff Michael McDade did           not comply with the statutory ninety-day notice of           claim requirement, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a), or seek relief           from that requirement by filing a notice of motion for           leave to file a late notice of claim, N.J.S.A. 59:8-9.           Because the discovery rules does not obviate the need           to comply with the statutory notice requirements, the           defendant MUA is entitled to summary judgment.  12-22-11  

In the Matter of Ty Hyderally, an Attorney at Law (D-134-10; 068701)

In the Matter of Ty Hyderally, an Attorney at Law           (D-134-10; 068701) 

          There is no clear and convincing evidence that           Hyderally either intentionally included the New Jersey           Supreme Court Certified Attorney seal or approved its           continued presence on his website, so there is no           basis on which to find that his conduct constituted           "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation," in           violation of RPC  8.4 (c), and the ethics complaint           should be dismissed.  Attorneys are responsible for           monitoring the content of all communications with the           public, including their websites, so henceforth,           attorneys who are not authorized to display the           Certified Attorney seal on their websites or in other           communication but do so, will be subject to           appropriate discipline.  12-20-11  

Mark Tannen v. Wendy Tannen (A-53-10; 066951)

Mark Tannen v. Wendy Tannen (A-53-10; 066951) 

          The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed           substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge           Messano’s opinion.  12-8-11