JAIME FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS. TEODORO MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS. RUBEN SABILLON, ET AL. A-4896-15T1

 JAIME FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS. TEODORO MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS. RUBEN SABILLON, ET AL. 

A-4896-15T1 

In reversing a partial summary judgment entered in defendants' favor, the court rejected the notion that plaintiffs – in alleging an invasion of their privacy in an office building's restroom – could only claim the presence of a hidden recording device by demonstrating their images were actually captured. In adhering to the general principles delineated in Soliman v. Kushner Cos., 433 N.J. Super. 153 (App. Div. 2013), the court concluded that an intrusion on seclusion occurs when a recording device is surreptitiously present notwithstanding whether the victim was ever recorded because the tort is intended to protect the victim's peace of mind and the comfort associated with the expectation of privacy. 

ESTATE OF FRANK P. LAGANO VS. BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, ET AL. A-1861-16T4

ESTATE OF FRANK P. LAGANO VS. BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S 

OFFICE, ET AL. 

A-1861-16T4 

A court issued wiretap orders pursuant to the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -37, which were later suppressed. The estate of an aggrieved person moved to unseal the intercepted conversations and evidence derived for use in a state civil forfeiture action and a federal civil rights action. The Appellate Division holds disclosure for use in civil litigation is permissible "upon a showing of good cause" under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-17(c), and disapproves the contrary ruling in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Spinelli, 212 N.J. Super. 526 (Law Div. 1986). Section 17(c) has no federal counterpart under Title III, which does not prevent such disclosure of the fruits of a state wiretap order. Suppression does not preclude disclosure in these circumstances. 

The trial court may order disclosure only if the need for disclosure outweighs the harms disclosure is likely to cause, subject to review for abuse of discretion. If a disclosure would reveal a person was a confidential informant for a particular agency, in a particular investigation, during a particular period, or in a particular way, the court must consider whether it is publicly known that the person cooperated with that agency, in that investigation, during that period, or in that way. 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES VS. R.R. A-1236-16T1

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES VS. R.R. 

A-1236-16T1 

The panel reversed the Division of Child Protection and Permanency's administrative finding that an allegation a father abused or neglected his young daughter was "not established" rather than "unfounded." N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(3), (4). The finding meant there was some, but not a preponderance of evidence, he harmed her or "placed [her] at risk of harm." The Division's finding was unreasonable because its investigation was incomplete. The Division did not consider evidence related to an order to show cause the father's estranged wife filed in their pending divorce, or a video she took of the incident. A matrimonial judge ordered the Division to investigate both parents, but it only investigated the father. The Division's finding also lacked sufficient support in the record the Division did compile. The father tried to stop his daughter from throwing things during a tantrum by holding her arms. She broke free and fell, but suffered no injury. That evidence did not show that he placed her at risk of harm. 

STATE FARM GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. HEREFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. A-3749-16T3

STATE FARM GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. HEREFORD 

INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. 

A-3749-16T3 

The court holds that the New Jersey Uniform Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-1 to -32, does not require an arbitrator to hold an in-person hearing at a physical location. Thus, unless the parties contract for an in-person arbitration hearing, or they show specialized need for such a hearing, arbitrators can conduct hearings by telephone conference or by other electronic means. 

Accordingly, the court affirms an order that denied the application of defendant Hereford Insurance Company to compel an arbitration organization, Arbitration Forums, Inc., to hold an in-person arbitration hearing concerning the reimbursement of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL. VS. E.L. AND K.L. A-1823-16T2

 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL. 

VS. E.L. AND K.L. 

A-1823-16T2 

Finding the pace of the proceedings here to be glacial in comparison to that which the Court found "troubling" in Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. E.D.-O., 223 N.J. 166, 194 (2015), the court concluded that the Department of Children and Families' inexcusable failure to provide complete discovery for a 

period of years – a circumstance that delayed the start of an evidentiary hearing about events that occurred more than six years earlier – fully justified an ALJ's dismissal of the Department's abuse and license-removal proceedings against the defendant and warranted the court's conclusion that the Department's reversal 

IN THE MATTER OF A.D., W.D., K.D., SA.B., T.B., SE.B., AND M.B. A-1905-15T4

IN THE MATTER OF A.D., W.D., K.D., SA.B., T.B., SE.B., AND M.B. 

A-1905-15T4 

The court addresses certain legal questions that arise when a case that involves the custody of a child under a Title 9 abuse or neglect FN complaint filed by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency is interrupted by a private custody case initiated by a member of the child’s family. To ensure legal protection for the parents, the court suggests a method of handling FD non-dissolution complaints when they are heard in the midst of FN abuse or neglect litigation. The FD hearing should be incorporated into the FN litigation and attorneys for the parents and children should participate. The court does not reverse here because the mother consented to the result. The court also affirms the finding of educational neglect and the dismissal of the FN litigation despite the objection of the mother. 

EMPOWER OUR NEIGHBORHOODS VS. KIMBERLY GUADAGNO, ET AL. A-0330-15T3/

EMPOWER OUR NEIGHBORHOODS VS. KIMBERLY GUADAGNO, ET AL. 

A-0330-15T3/A-0331-15T3/A-0333-15T3(CONSOLIDATED) 

Empower Our Neighborhoods (EON), a community based advocacy group, partially succeeded on an election law claim. They obtained a judgment eliminating the district residency requirements, pursuant to Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), for circulators of: recall petitions, petitions nominating independent candidates in general elections, petitions selecting candidates from local parties, and petitions nominating Board of Education members. The court affirmed Judge Mary Jacobson's decision that EON's success was sufficient to merit the award of counsel fees, apportioned among the defendants based on the extent of their responsibility for the constitutional tort.