In each of the last two days, the Supreme Court issued unanimous opinions involving the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42 (“LAD”).  Yesterday, in Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373 (2016), the Court ruled that the LAD’s protection against discrimination based on marital status extends to persons who have separated from a spouse and are in the process of divorce.  Judge Cuff wrote that opinion.  Today, in

This has been a busy past ten days for the Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, that busy period coincided with one of my own busy periods.  So here is a very brief recap of some of the actions that the Court took since April 26:

In Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 224 N.J. 584 (2016), a closely-watched case, the Court voted 3-2 that in prosecuting a fiduciary malpractice action against an attorney who intentionally violated an escrow agreement, the prevailing beneficiary could be award

Silviera-Francisco v. Elizabeth Bd. of Educ., 224 N.J. 126 (2016).  “Whether a trial court order is final or interlocutory has bedeviled courts and attorneys for decades.”  So said Judge Cuff in her opinion for the Court today in this matter, a 6-0 ruling.  The issue here, though, was whether a decision of an administrative agency was final, so that the failure of a party to appeal that decision immediately foreclosed it from appealing later in the cas