In addition to the Supreme Court’s grant of review in a case involving the termination of a contract of sale of residential real estate, discussed here, the Court announced in the last several days that it would review four other cases. All of those cases arise from unpublished decisions in the Appellate Division.
In Grande v. St. Claire’s Health System. an employment discrimination case, the Appellate Division split 2-1, with Judges Fuentes and Kennedy forming the majority. Their per curiam decision reversed a summary judgment for the defendant. Judge Ashrafi, dissenting, would have upheld that summary judgment. Defendant appealed as of right. The question presented in that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Under the circumstances presented, was defendant entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s allegations that she was terminated based upon a perceived or actual disability, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD)?”
In Motorworld, Inc. v. Benkendorf, the Court granted a petition for certification. The question presented is “Did plaintiffs’ [sic] release defendants’ $600,000 debt in exchange for ‘reasonably equivalent value’ within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(a), and was it a fraudulent conveyance?”
The Court also granted review in two criminal cases. In State v. Cole, the question presented is “Did the trial court err in admitting, over defendant’s objection, the portion of defendant’s videotaped statement that was captured when he was alone in the interrogation room?” And in State v. Comer, the question presented is “Does defendant’s aggregate sentence, imposed for a homicide offense among other charges, violate the proscriptions of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) and other authority regarding sentences of juvenile offenders?”