Landau v. Landau, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). The honor of the first published Appellate Division decision of the new Term goes to Judge Accurso in this matrimonial appeal. The issue, as Judge Accurso framed it, was “whether the changed circumstances standard of Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980), continues to apply to a motion to suspend or terminate alimony based on cohabitation following the 2014 amendments to the alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n).” In Lepis, the Supreme court ruled that “[a] prima facie showing of changed circumstances must be made...

The Appellate Division does not issue many opinions in August, as the judges clean up remaining inventory. But there have been some significant published opinions in the last two weeks. Here are summaries of some of those rulings: Harvard v. State, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). Plaintiff in this appeal was a Special Civil Part Officer in the Atlantic/Cape May County vicinage. The vicinage learned of numerous violations of directives of the Administrative Office of the Courts upon an investigation of plaintiff’s financial record. The Assignment Judge of the vicinage terminated...

Escobar v. Mazie, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). This appeal arose out of an order disqualifying every attorney at the law firm of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC except Adam Slater from representing the firm or one of its principals, David Mazie, in defense of this malpractice action. Slater certified that he had had no involvement in the underlying matter. Plaintiff successfully argued in the Law Division that Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 precluded Mazie and most others at the firm from participating in the defense of depositions because those attorneys would be necessary...