The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in State v. Vega-Larregui. Pursuant to Rule 2:12-1, the Court granted direct certification of a portion of defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment that was pending in the Law Division, Mercer County. The certification is limited to “defendant’s constitutional challenge to the indictment returned by a Grand Jury proceeding that was conducted remotely.” Other aspects of the motion to dismiss “remain pending in the Superior Court, which shall retain jurisdiction to consider those matters.” read more

On this date in 1957, the Supreme Court decided Tessmar v. Grossner, 23 N.J. 193 (1957). The case involved a dispute over patient records from a dermatology practice in Westwood, NJ. Plaintiff’s decedent, Dr. Kadisch, became ill and was unable to practice. He entered into a written contract with defendant under which defendant would “take care of the practice during Dr. Kadisch’s illness.” He was to see patients two days per week and be paid $40 per day. read more

Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). As summarized here, the Appellate Division in this overtime Wage and Hour Law (“WHL”) class action case reversed a summary judgment ruling for the defense, holding that the statute’s “good faith defense” was not available to defendant. Today, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. read more

Doe v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Today, the Appellate Division, speaking through Judge Sumners, issued a decision under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. (“OPRA”). Plaintiff, formerly a student at the university’s Graduate School of Business, made several OPRA requests. The first of those requests included, but went well beyond, plaintiff’s own student records. A second request sought copies of specific Rutgers administrators’ and faculty members’ disclosable employment records. There were three other requests as well. read more

In re Petition for Expungement of the Criminal Record Belonging to T.O., ___ N.J. ___ (2021). The first Supreme Court opinion of 2021, issued this morning, was authored by Chief Justice Rabner. The issue, as stated in the first sentence of the opinion, was “the effect of a gubernatorial pardon on request to expunge a criminal record.” read more

State v. Gerena, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Defendant was convicted of fourth degree lewdness. A statutory grading element of that offense is that one or more of the children whom witnesses testified were near defendant were under the age of thirteen. To address the age issue, the State offered testimony of witnesses who provided lay opinion as to what they perceived as the children’s ages and heights. read more

Wilson v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, United States Dep’t of Labor, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2020). The final published opinion of the Third Circuit in 2020 was a case in which plaintiff, a maritime construction worker on a project to replace a Route 3 bridge spanning the Passaic River between Clifton and Rutherford, NJ, suffered hearing impairment due to the noise of the construction work. He sought benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq. (“LHWCA”). But the LHWCA affords benefits only if a maritime worker was injured while on “navigable waters of the United States” (or, in a provision not applicable here, on an “adjoining [land] area”). An Administrative Law Judge and the Benefits Review Board each concluded that plaintiff was not on navigable waters of the United States. On plaintiff’s appeal, the Third Circuit reversed in an opinion by Judge Restrepo. read more

State v. Smith, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2020). Perhaps fittingly, the final published Appellate Division of 2020, written by Judge Fasciale and issued today, centered on the COVID-19 pandemic. This case involved a trial of murder and other charges against two defendants. That trial began on February 12, 2020. By March 15, when the Supreme Court suspended all jury trials, the State was still presenting its case, having offered 29 witnesses, with three or four more witnesses still to come. read more