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,...

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...

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. Congratulations, Judge...