Matullo v. Skyzone Trampoline Park, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022); Perez v. Sky Zone LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). Sky Zone, an entertainment operation, has appeared in this blog before, in a case involving Sky Zone’s liability waiver provision. Today, Sky Zone again entered the books of reported opinion, with two separate opinions of the Appellate Division in cases that were argued on the same day and decided by the same panel. Both cases involved the arbitration clause that Sky Zone imposes on persons entering its trampoline parks. Both opinions were written by Judge Gilson. read more

Metro Marketing, LLC v. Nationwide Vehicle Assurance, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). As discussed here, the “sham affidavit doctrine” holds that a party opposing summary judgment cannot claim that an affidavit that contradicts the affiant’s prior sworn evidence, such as deposition testimony, creates a genuine dispute of material fact unless there is a legitimate explanation for the affiant’s changed position. Shelcusky v. Garjulio, 172 N.J. 185 (2002), is the leading New Jersey case regarding the doctrine. read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. One is a civil matter, in which a two-judge Appellate Division panel issued an unpublished per curiam decision. The other, a criminal case, was decided by a per curiam unpublished ruling by a three-judge panel. read more

read more

DiFiore v. Pezic, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). This opinion by Judge Sabatino exhaustively explored, in three consolidated cases, the issue of “when, if ever, a plaintiff with alleged cognitive limitations, psychological impairments, or language barriers can be accompanied by a third party to a defense medical examination (“DME”), or require that the examination be video or audio recorded in order to preserve objective evidence of what occurred during the examination.” The court was asked to revisit its opinion in B.D. v. Carley, 307 N.J. Super. 259 (App. Div. 1998), which had permitted “unobtrusive” audio recording of an examination but had not opined about video recording or attendance by third persons. read more

This year’s “summer” song, to introduce the just-announced Appellate Division summer Parts schedule, is by Seals & Croft. The schedule is different this year as compared to previous ones. Instead of the usual two-judge Parts, each two-week session features a Part consisting of four judges. The first two-week stint runs from June 20-July 3, and the final “summer” session goes from August 29- September 11. Each Part has a Presiding Judge, and the order provides that “[t]ime and place of any hearing shall be fixed by the presiding judge of the part sitting.”
read more

State v. O.D.A.-C., ___N.J. ___ (2022). Everyone knows, even if only from watching police procedurals on television, about the warnings that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), requires police to give criminal suspects before questioning them. This unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Rabner on appeal as of right due to a dissent in the Appellate Division, addressed particular ways in which detectives had conducted an interrogation and concluded that the Appellate Division majority correctly suppressed the defendant’s statements made in that interrogation. read more

read more