As discussed here, last year the Appellate Division addressed the “unsettled” question of which should come first in a criminal case involving a juvenile sought to be tried as an adult: a suppression motion in the Family Part or a waiver to the Criminal Part? The Appellate Division declined to adopt a bright line rule, instead observing that trial judges have substantial discretion in setting their calendars, and that the order in which to proceed is a “discretionary, highly contextual decision” dependent on the particular circumstances. The court stated, however, that there should be “a general preference toward conducting the suppression hearing first, in light of the policy concerns associated with the powerful impact of waivers upon minors.” read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in another criminal matter, a robbery case. The appeal is State v. Watson, and the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Was it harmless error to admit the police officer’s testimony that he consulted with another police department before filing criminal charges against defendant, did the officer’s testimony narrating a surveillance video deprive defendant of a fair trial, and was it plain error to allow the victim to identify defendant for the first time in-court during the trial when the victim previously had identified a different individual as the perpetrator during a photo array?” In an opinion reported at 472 N.J. Super. 381 (App. Div. 2022), the Appellate Division upheld defendant’s conviction and remanded solely on the issue of defendant’s ability to pay the amount of restitution that was assessed against him. read more

Largoza v. FKM Real Estate Holdings, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). A line of federal cases that includes Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967), as well as, in New Jersey state courts, Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp., 238 N.J. 191 (2019), and Van Syoc v. Walter, 259 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1992), hold that fraud in the inducement challenges to a contract’s arbitration clause are to be treated differently depending on whether the fraud is alleged to have induced the contract generally or the arbitration clause in particular. Among other things, if the fraud in the inducement challenge is not specific to the arbitration clause, such a clause is enforceable. read more

As discussed here, Judge Fisher, the Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division’s Part F, will reach mandatory retirement age on November 29. Chief Justice Rabner has now announced that, as of that same date, Judge Sumners, who had been designated as Acting Presiding Judge of that Part while Judge Fisher was temporarily assigned to the Supreme Court, will become Presiding Judge of Part F. The Order so designating Judge Sumners is available here. read more

State v. Wade, ___ N.J. ___ (2022). As Justice Solomon said in his unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court today in this murder case, New Jersey courts “rarely find an error to be harmless when the State violates a defendant’s right against self-incrimination. That is not only because the right to counsel is so precious, but also because self-inculpatory statements are powerful evidence of guilt that is not easily overcome” (citation omitted). As a result, a suspect’s statements made after detectives fail to cease questioning once the suspect invokes the right to counsel are “presumed involuntary” and are inadmissible at trial. read more

Chief Justice Rabner issued Orders, effective yesterday, temporarily assigning two trial level judges to the Appellate Division. Judge James Paganelli, who sits in the Essex County Chancery Division, General Equity, is temporarily assigned to Part E of the Appellate Division, while Judge Lisa Puglisi, who sits in the Ocean County Criminal Division, is temporarily assigned to Part B. Both of those assignments are “in addition to” their respective current assignments, and both temporary assignments run from November 14, 2022 through January 8, 2023.
read more

The Supreme Court announced that it will consider three new matters. Two of those involved grants of certification, while the third was an appeal as of right. read more

Asphalt Paving Systems, Inc. v. The Borough of Stone Harbor, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). This opinion by Judge Fisher today consumed only six pages. The issue was a relatively simple one: whether the requirement of N.J.S.A. 52:25-24.2 that a business entity that bids on a public contract submit “a statement setting forth the names and addresses” of the individuals owning more than ten percent of the entity means that home addresses of those persons must be supplied. read more