Sandra W. Seigel v. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

08-16-07

In this opinion, we were called upon to interpret
regulations promulgated by the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) that define a "dune," N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.16(a),
and a "primary frontal dune," N.J.A.C. 7:7-7.8(d)1ii.

Petitioner's applied for a coastal general permit under the
Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) seeking permission to
construct a single-family oceanfront home. The agency concluded
that the entirety of petitioner's property was a "primary
frontal dune," and denied the permit.

We reversed. We interpreted the regulatory definitions and
concluded that petitioner's entire property was not a "primary
frontal dune" and determined that the proposed construction area
was not on a dune and, therefore, not subject to regulatory
restrictions.

We also concluded that DEP's interpretation of the
regulatory language resulted in a fundamental unfairness to
petitioner whose surrounding neighbors had constructed similar
homes on their adjacent properties. (*Approved for Publication
date)

Department of Environmental Protection v. Johan Kafil

08-15-07 A-5364-05T2

We reverse the trial court's holding that, before DEP may
file a civil action seeking injunctive relief remediating
alleged Spill Act and USTA violations, it must first employ its
own extensive regulatory power in administrative proceedings.

OFP, L.L.C. v. State of New Jersey

08-10-07 A-3190-05T1

The Highlands Act's administrative hardship waiver remedy
must be exhausted before a property owner can assert a claim
that the Act's restrictions upon development in the preservation
area of the Highlands Region have resulted in a regulatory
taking. The retroactive application of the Highlands Act to
major development projects that received all required regulatory
approvals under other statutes during the period between the
Act's introduction and enactment is valid.

Essie Wilson v. Paradise Village Beach Resort and Spa

08-10-07 A-3055-05T5

A Mexican resort's participation in advertisements placed
by airlines and travel agencies in newspapers distributed in New
Jersey and the resort's maintenance of websites that can be
accessed by New Jersey residents do not constitute sufficient
contacts with New Jersey for our courts to exercise jurisdiction
over a claim that does not arise out of those contacts.

Roslyn Quarto. v. Maureen Adams

08-09-07 A-3904-06T1
The transitional issue presented in this appeal is whether
the Division of Taxation ("the Division") is compelled by Lewis
v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006), and the subsequent enactment of
New Jersey's civil union act, L. 2006, c. 103 ("the Civil Union
Act"), to permit a same-sex couple, married in another
jurisdiction before that statute's February 19, 2007 effective
date, to file a joint New Jersey gross income tax return for
income they earned in calendar year 2006.

Appellants, who are New Jersey residents, were united in a
same-sex marriage in Canada in 2003. Guided by the Attorney
General's Formal Opinion No. 3-2007 (regarding New Jersey's
recognition of same-sex unions from other jurisdictions), the
Acting Director of the Division denied appellants' request to
file a joint New Jersey tax return for their 2006 earnings.
Although appellants are entitled to declaratory relief
concerning future tax years, we hold that the Division is not
required to treat appellants' 2006 income as joint income. We
are satisfied that the Division may utilize a reasonable
transition period to conform its forms and procedures to the
constitutional and statutory principles espoused in Lewis v.
Harris, supra, and in the Civil Union Act. We also note that
the Acting Director's determination comports with established
administrative practices of looking to the familial status of
wage earners, for taxation purposes, during the calendar year
that their income was earned.

Judge Stern has filed a concurring opinion. The
concurrence expresses reservations about denying appellants, as
partners in a legally-recognized civil union, the right to file
a joint tax return after February 19, 2007, but defers to the
Supreme Court's remedial prerogatives.

Dennis Pryor v. Department of Corrections

08-09-07 A-1707-04T5

N.J.A.C. 10:18A-9.6 which permits the Administrator of the
Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center to withhold from inmates
"material that is not sexually oriented" when it will "impede
the rehabilitation of the inmate(s)," is facially
constitutional, and N.J.A.C. 10A:16-4.4, concerning "inmatetherapist
confidentiality," does not violate the Eighth
Amendment, but may require a warning as to use in light of the
Sexual Violent Predator Act.

Fayette Fair Trade, Inc. t/a Club 41 v. Governing Body of the City of Perth Amboy

08-08-07 A-2429-06T5

Petitioner Fayette Fair Trade, Inc. appeals from a final
determination of the Director of the Division of Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) suspending its license based on a finding
of an undisclosed business interest in the license, and the
licensee's failing to disclose that interest in the application,
or providing false, misleading or inaccurate information about
it. At issue in this appeal is whether a licensee's employee
who runs the day-to-day operations of the licensed premises with
little or no oversight from the owner of the corporation
licensee and who shares in the licensee's profits, but is not a
shareholder, holds an impermissible undisclosed beneficial
interest in the liquor license in violation of N.J.S.A. 33:1-25.
The ABC Director found unlawful conduct, and we affirm.