In a development foreshadowed by yesterday’s issuance of the 2019-2020 General Assignment Order, the Supreme Court today published two orders dated July 8 that appoint Judges Ronald Susswein and Catherine Enright to the Appellate Division, effective as of August 1, 2019. read more

Holtham v. Lucas, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). As Judge Ostrer noted in the first sentence of his opinion in this case today, “[a]ccording to well-settled contract law, a provision that stipulates an unreasonably large amount of damages for a future breach is an unenforceable penalty.” The parties to this matrimonial case entered into a marital settlement agreement that contained a “per diem penalty of $150” for any breach of any duty under that agreement. When plaintiff failed to timely pay off a loan on a car that was to be distributed to his (ex-)wife and to tender title to the vehicle to her, he challenged the per diem provision, asserting that it was an invalid penalty. read more

F.K. v. Integrity House, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). This charitable immunity case centered on how much in charitable contributions (as opposed to, say, government support) defendant received. In order to satisfy the three-pronged test for charitable immunity, the second prong of which (the only one at issue on this appeal) requires that an entity be “organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes,” it was necessary for defendant, a drug treatment facility, to show a charitable purpose. To do that, the percentage of its funds that came from charitable contributions became relevant. read more

Chief Justice Rabner has issued the general Assignment Order for 2019-2020. It is available here. read more

On July 3, 1997, the Supreme Court decided Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corp. of America, 150 N.J. 255 (1997). Justice Handler’s opinion in that case, for a 6-0 Court, is a key Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) case. It is also the leading authority as to when a CFA claim is, or is not, pre-empted by the fact that the conduct complained of is regulated by multiple state agencies. read more

Goldfarb v. Solimine, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). Everyone has their favorite judge(s) before whom they would prefer to try a case. In this case, “a defense attorney, in an ex parte communication, sought [a particular] judge’s assignment to the case, and the judge responded by specifically requesting the assignment from the presiding judge.” The requesting judge, a longtime member of the bench, got the assignment. read more

G.A.-H. v. K.G.G., ___ N.J. ___ (2019). As noted here, the Supreme Court granted review in this case to address this issue: “Is an individual subject to tort liability for purportedly failing to alert a victim or alert authorities that a co-worker has engaged in the sexual abuse of a minor, under the circumstances presented?” The Appellate Division’s opinion, reported at 455 N.J. Super. 294 (App. Div. 2018), and discussed here, raised that provocative issue, but found the record insufficient to decide it. read more

Last week, the Appellate Division issued four published opinions on a single day, as discussed here. Today, the court released three published decisions. Here are summaries of those opinions: read more